Norbert Dall Trial testimony

Date of Testimony: 05.19.2014

1    MR. ESSNER:    We’re going to call Norbert Dall as

2    our next witness.    If you could just give me a moment to

3    set up.

4    THE COURT:    Sure.

5    MR. ESSNER:    Your Honor, this is — at some point

6    during Mr. Dall’s testimony, we’re going to use this as a

7    demonstrative, which is essentially a legislative history.

8    MR. BUESCHER:    One question about that while

9    we’re addressing it.

10    Were each of the documents in there produced by

11    Mr. Dall?

12    MR. ESSNER:    Yes.

13    MR. BUESCHER:    Thank you.    I just wanted to

14    confirm that.

15    MR. ESSNER:    I’ll go get him, Your Honor.

16    THE COURT:    The bailiff can get him.

17    MR. ESSNER:    Norbert Dall.

18    THE CLERK:    Please stand and raise your right

19    hand.

20    Testimony of,


22    called as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, and

23    having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:

24    THE CLERK:    Thank you.    Please be seated.

25    Can you please state and spell your first and

26    last name for the record.

1        THE WITNESS:    Norbert, N-o-r-b-e-r-t, Dall, 2    D-a-l-l.
3    THE COURT:    Thank you.    Go ahead.



6    Q.    Good afternoon, Mr. Dall.

7    What is your current occupation, sir?

8    A.    My current occupation is as a partner in

9    Dall & Associates, a domestic and international consulting

10    firm in sustainable coastal management, transportation and

11    land use.

12    Q.    And have you been hired by Hopkins & Carley to

13    provide expert opinions in this matter?

14    A.    I have.

15    Q.    And are we paying you for your services?

16    A.    You are.

17    Q.    And are we paying you by the hour?

18    A.    You are.

19    Q.    And is our payment to you in any way dependent on

20    the outcome of this case?

21    A.    It is not.

22    Q.    Could you briefly describe your educational

23    background.

24    A.    My undergraduate work was at several colleges and

25    universities.    My degree in political science as a

26    Lana Dane Fuller Scholar was from U.C. Berkeley in 1970.

1    And I did graduate work as a National Science Foundation

2    Fellow and as a National Defense Education Act Fellow in

3    political science at Rutgers University in New Jersey.

4    Q.    And you keep up on a day-to-day basis with the

5    activities of coastal legislation and coastal programs?

6    A.    I do.

7    Q.    And in what way?

8    A.    By virtually daily reading the legislative

9    agendas, proposed legislation, amendments to proposed

10    legislation, reports, studies, memoranda by the

11    California Coastal Commission, similarly for the

12    United States Congress and similarly for other countries

13    around the world.

14    Q.    Do you attend Coastal Commission meetings?

15    A.    I do when it is prudent and necessary.

16    Otherwise, I monitor virtually every meeting of the

17    Coastal Commission on its Web cast and also confer

18    extensively with Coastal Commission staff.

19    Q.    Have you taught any courses or seminars on the

20    topic of Coastal Commission regulatory activities or the

21    Coastal Act?

22    A.    I have.

23    Q.    How many?

24    A.    Quite a few.    At the Lincoln Institute in

25    Cambridge, Massachusetts; at U.C. Irvine in the Graduate

26    School of Public Administration; at Humboldt State

1    University in political science and sociology; and at

2    various other venues, including in the World Conservation

3    Union’s Commission for Environmental Strategy and Planning,

4    both in Washington, D.C. as well as in the former

5    East Germany.

6    Q.    Have you published any articles on any coastal

7    legislation or coastal programs?

8    A.    I have.

9    Q.    Roughly, how many?

10    A.    More than 70.

11    Q.    Seventy?

12    A.    Seventy.

13    Q.    And could you please describe your employment

14    background beginning in 1973.

15    A.    Between 1973 and 1976, I was first the staff

16    writer and then managing editor of a publication by

17    California Research called “The State Coastal Report” and 18    in 19 —
19    Q.    Let me stop you there.

20    A.    Pardon me.

21    Q.    What were your duties and responsibilities for

22    that particular publication?

23    A.    My duties initially were to cover all

24    Coastal Commission meetings under the Proposition 20

25    Coastal Act, to interview and monitor the Legislature,

26    speak with legislators and their staffs with regard to the

1    evolving California Coastal Plan.

2    Q.    I interrupted you.    Please continue.

3    A.    In 1976, I was the managing editor of another

4    California research publication called “The Coastal

5    Legislation Monitoring Service,” which was a nearly daily

6    publication that, in great detail, reported on and analyzed

7    the activities of the Legislature, stakeholders, lobbyists,

8    Governor Brown’s administration and others with regard to

9    the proposed enactment of coastal legislation in 1975, ’76.

10    Q.    And when you say you reported and monitored, what

11    do you mean by that?

12    A.    I attended every public meeting of every

13    committee and subcommittee and floor session of both houses

14    of the State Legislature with regard to coastal

15    legislation.

16    I interviewed a broad spectrum of individuals,

17    including Governor Brown, the principal committee chairs

18    with jurisdiction over coastal legislation, many of the

19    legislators who had coastal districts or were interested in

20    coastal subjects, such as agriculture, for instance.    And I

21    spoke extensively with lobbyists, both in the environmental

22    community as well as the private sector and public agencies

23    with regard to their positions and issues with regard to

24    coastal legislation.

25    Q.    And then did you write reports of those

26    observations —

1    A.    Yes.

2    Q.    — and discussions?

3    A.    Forgive me.    On a regular basis, frequently,

4    multiple times a week, I wrote or I edited the writings of

5    others in our firm reporting on these developments, these

6    activities with regard to coastal legislation.

7    Q.    And after that position, where did you work?

8    A.    In November of 1976, the Coastal Act hadn’t been

9    signed into law by Governor Brown.    I was hired by the

10    Sierra Club to become the California Coastal and Land Use

11    representative and coordinator of volunteer activities.

12    Q.    And what were your responsibilities?

13    A.    My responsibilities were to attend every

14    Coastal Commission meeting, including the then-existing six

15    regional Coastal Commission meetings, to confer with

16    Sierra Club volunteers, coastal commissioners, local

17    government officials, federal officials to represent the

18    Sierra Club’s interests with regard to regulatory matters,

19    planning, acquisition of private property for parks and

20    acquisitions, to oppose major projects that were pending in

21    the coastal zone, to testify before the United States

22    Congress and a whole host of related organizational issues.

23    Q.    What types of projects do you currently work on?

24    A.    My current work as a consultant and advisor on

25    coastal matters ranges from public access to

26    resource — natural resource restoration and enhancement,

1    beach restoration, land form restoration, as in the

2    instance of landslides, urban in-fill development and, in

3    years past, I have worked extensively with regard to one of

4    the major industrial ports here in California.

5    Q.    Have you worked on any local coastal programs?

6    A.    Yes.    I have worked — of the approximately 125

7    local coastal program segments here on the Pacific Ocean

8    coast of California, I have worked directly on about 85 of

9    those.

10    Q.    Just briefly, could you explain to the Court what

11    a local coastal program is?

12    A.    Yes.    A local coastal program is a legislative

13    term of art for the component of the California Coastal

14    Program pursuant to the Coastal Act of 1976, by which local

15    governments, cities and counties along the coast line, the

16    ocean coast line, bring their general plans and their

17    zoning into conformity with the policy standards and

18    procedures of the California Coastal Act.

19    Succinctly, each local government is required to

20    prepare, as part of its local coastal program, a so-called

21    land use plan or a coastal element of its general plan,

22    which is specifically required to contain a public access

23    component.    And, secondly, to adopt land use and zoning

24    maps.    And, thirdly, to adopt zoning ordinances and related

25    implementation measures that effectuate the Coastal Act’s

26    provisions at the local level.

1    Q.    What experience do you have in connection with

2    securing coastal public access?

3    A.    I’ve had the great pleasure, over nearly 40

4    years, to be involved on behalf of nonprofit organizations,

5    public agencies, private sector interests and others in

6    securing public access and public recreational

7    opportunities along the California coast, including through

8    public access easements, through acquisition of coastal

9    private property for public use and for improvement and

10    monitoring and restoration of those facilities to maintain

11    that public use.

12    Q.    Have you ever been hired as an expert to testify

13    on issues related to the Coastal Act before?

14    A.    I have.

15    Q.    How many times?

16    A.    My firm has been hired approximately nine or ten

17    times.    I, personally, four or five times.

18    (Defendants’ Exhibit No. 139-B Was Marked For

19    Identification.)

20    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) And I’m going to ask you to take

21    a look at Exhibit 39.    And it contains — excuse me, 139.

22    I’m sorry, 139-B.    So that’s the second volume.    Sorry.

23    Mr. Dall, is this a true and correct copy of

24    your current resume?

25    A.    It is.

26    Q.    And behind it, is that a true and correct copy of

1    your firm’s resume?

2    A.    It is.

3    MR. ESSNER:    Your Honor, I would move Exhibit 139

4    into evidence.

5    THE COURT:    Any objection?

6    MR. BUESCHER:    No objection.

7    THE COURT:    139 is admitted — or actually 139-B

8    is admitted.

9    (Defendants’ Exhibit No. 139-B Was Admitted Into

10    Evidence.)

11    MR. ESSNER:    I’m sorry.    Thank you for the

12    clarification.

13    MR. BUESCHER:    Thank you, Your Honor.

14    MR. ESSNER:    Your Honor, at this point, I would

15    like to submit Norbert Dall as an expert, qualified to

16    testify on legislative history, purpose and intent of the

17    Coastal Act and the implementation of the California

18    Coastal Management Program.

19    THE COURT:    Any objection?

20    MR. BUESCHER:    Very briefly, Your Honor.

21    THE COURT:    Do you wish to ask some voir dire?

22    MR. BUESCHER:    One question.    I just wanted to

23    clarify.

24    Are you an attorney?

25    THE WITNESS:    I am not.

26    MR. BUESCHER:    I have no objection to Mr. Dall

1    being identified as an expert.    I would request that the

2    scope of his opinion be what was ordered by the Court on

3    motions in limine, which was that he was being offered for

4    the point of the legislative history of the various

5    sections of the Coastal Act in question, which was

6    Ms. Yob’s representation.    The Court said:

7    “We all seem to be in agreement that he

8    can testify as to the legislative

9    history, so that will be the Court’s

10    ruling.”

11    Anything beyond that, I believe, is outside the

12    scope of Mr. Dall’s permissible expert testimony.

13    THE COURT:    Alright.    Thank you.

14    The Court will so designate.

15    MR. BUESCHER:    Thank you, Your Honor.

16    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Mr. Dall, first question:    What

17    was the legislative intent of the Coastal Act with respect

18    to private property rights?

19    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    Vague.    Overbroad.

20    THE COURT:    No.    Objection is overruled.

21    Go ahead.    You may answer the question.

22    THE WITNESS:    Thank you, Your Honor.

23    The legislative intent, as shown by the

24    legislative history of the 1976 Coastal Act, with regard

25    to private property rights as they pertain specifically to

26    public access, but not only, was that those private

1    property rights would be protected in a manner consistent

2    with the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution

3    protections of private property.

4    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) What’s the basis for your

5    opinion there?

6    A.    The basis for my opinion is my review and writing

7    about the legislative history of the Coastal Act as it was

8    introduced and amended in the California Legislature in

9    1976 in the coastal legislation.

10    Q.    Anything else?

11    A.    Fundamentally, the Legislature — forgive me.

12    The coastal legislation in late August of 1976,

13    stalled for lack of the necessary votes to be approved by

14    the State Senate.    This is the legislative history.    And

15    the offer of an amendment to the Coastal Act specifically

16    states or references the private property rights pursuant

17    to the U.S. and Federal Constitutions were incorporated to

18    address and ameliorate specific opposition by State

19    legislators who indicated on the record that they would

20    otherwise vote against the coastal legislation.

21    Q.    And the legislative history that you just

22    articulated, has that been incorporated into any particular

23    portion of the Coastal Act by codification?

24    A.    It has.    The legislative history shows that that

25    language was incorporated at Public Resources Code

26    Section 30010.

1    Q.    Thank you.    What was the legislative intent of

2    the Coastal Act with respect to public access?

3    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    Vague and overbroad

4    again.

5    THE COURT:    Objection is overruled.

6    THE WITNESS:    The legislative history with regard

7    to the coastal legislation in 1976 indicates that the

8    legislative intent, with regard to public access to and

9    along the shoreline, was to maximize that public access

10    within a series of criteria or standards and pursuant to

11    assurance that both private property rights as well as

12    public rights, public safety and natural resources be

13    protected.

14    Q.    And was that intent codified?

15    A.    The legislative history indicates that that

16    legislative intent was codified at Section — and I will

17    not repeat Public Resources Code each time — at

18    Section 30210 of the Coastal Act.

19    Q.    What was the legislative history and intent with

20    regard to development not interfering with public access

21    rights?

22    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    Vague.

23    THE COURT:    Objection is overruled.

24    THE WITNESS:    The legislative history indicates

25    the legislative intent in the coastal legislation, but that

26    ultimately became the Coastal Act, was — the ultimate

1    version that was signed into law by the governor in 1976,

2    was that development in the coastal zone subject to the

3    Coastal Act would not be allowed to impair or impede public

4    access that was established on the basis of implied

5    dedication use by prescriptive rights or public access by

6    recorded easement that had been accepted by public agency

7    and had been open for public use by that public agency or

8    another entity.

9    And, secondly, that public access should

10    not — shall not be impeded or impaired in areas where the

11    Legislature had authorized acquisition of private property

12    for public purchase, for public acquisition.

13    Q.    What does that mean, the last part, the

14    Legislature shall not — excuse me.    The Legislature

15    authorizing the acquisition of property for public purpose?

16    A.    The term that the legislative history indicates,

17    including in the 1976 Urban and Coastal Park Pond Act,

18    Senate Bill 1321, I believe it was Proposition 2 in the

19    November ballot of that year, that legislative

20    authorization means both that the Legislature has

21    authorized a specific property, or set of properties, for

22    public acquisition by a State agency or its designee; and,

23    secondly, has identified the funding to actually implement

24    that authorization to acquire private property for public

25    access or public recreational uses.

26    THE COURT:    Let me just clarify something.    You,

1    in your answer, had said public purchase, and you in your

2    next question said “public purpose.”    But you’re talking

3    about public purchase, right?

4    MR. ESSNER:    I think I misspoke, Your Honor.

5    THE COURT:    Alright.

6    MR. ESSNER:    Sorry.

7    I want to hand you a demonstrative.    I gave the

8    Court one.    I gave counsel one for the record.

9    THE COURT:    Yes.

10    THE WITNESS:    Thank you.

11    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Did you prepare that document?

12    A.    I did.
13    Q.    What is that    document?
14    A.    The document    you have just handed to    me is a

15    matrix that I prepared of the legislative history of Public

16    Resources Code Section 30211, regarding development and

17    public rights of access to the sea.    I prepared this

18    document within the last month.

19    Q.    And can you point to me the first section of the

20    Coastal Bill that raised that concept?

21    A.    On Page 1 of 16, the document is

22    Senate Bill 1579, Anthony Beilenson from Beverly Hills was

23    the principal author.    And in the fourth — the second

24    column indicates the date.    The third column indicates the

25    page or section number.    And the fourth column from the

26    left indicates the provision.    And what I or someone under

1    my direction did in my office was to create excerpts from

2    the original bills that are in my possession, in my

3    archives, for Senate Bill 1579, was the original coastal

4    bill introduced on behalf of the

5    California Coastal Commission, the Sierra Club and other

6    proponents.

7    Q.    Is that the bill that some people referred to as

8    the “Beilenson Bill”?

9    A.    This is the bill that sometimes is referred to as

10    the “Beilenson Bill,” yes.

11    MR. ESSNER:    Your Honor, I would like to mark as

12    the next exhibit in order, the full section of that bill,

13    just not the excerpt, although we’ll focus on the excerpt

14    in this.

15    THE COURT:    Next in order.

16    (Defendants’ Exhibit No. 158 Was Marked For

17    Identification.)

18    THE COURT:    Have you shown that to counsel?

19    MR. ESSNER:    I gave him one.

20    THE COURT:    Thank you.

21    MR. ESSNER:    158?

22    THE CLERK:    Correct.

23    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Let me show you Exhibit 158.

24    Can you identify that for me.

25    A.    Exhibit 158 is a facsimile reproduction produced

26    on a copy machine in my office of Senate Bill 1579 as

1    introduced on February 10, 1976, specifically, Pages 1, 10,

2    11, barely legible the page number, 28, 52, 53, 55, 92, 93

3    and    94.
4            MR.    ESSNER:    I would move that into evidence.
5            THE    COURT:    Any objection?
6            MR.    BUESCHER:    No objection, Your Honor.
7            THE    COURT:    Exhibit 158, then, is admitted.

8    (Defendants’ Exhibit No. 158 Was Admitted Into Evidence.)

9    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) So you excerpted a portion of

10    what I have handed you and pasted that into the first page

11    of the demonstrative that you created; is that right?

12    A.    That is correct.

13    Q.    And on that first page, there is a — could you

14    read for the Court what development shall not be permitted

15    to interfere with?

16    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    The document speaks

17    for itself, Your Honor.

18    THE COURT:    I can read it for myself.

19    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Included in that provision was

20    the statement “historic use and custom.”

21    Do you see that?

22    A.    I do, at Line 12.

23    Q.    What was your understanding of what was meant by

24    “historic use and custom”?

25    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    Calls for a legal

26    opinion.    Mr. Dall is not an attorney.

1    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) What is your understanding of

2    the legislative intent by the word “historic use and

3    custom”?

4    MR. BUESCHER:    Same objection.

5    THE COURT:    Objection is overruled.

6    Go ahead.

7    THE WITNESS:    The legislative history of the term

8    “historic use and custom” derives from the

9    California Coastal Plan of 1975 that was prepared and

10    adopted by the California Coastal Commission pursuant to

11    the mandate of the 1972 Coastal Act, Proposition 20, in the

12    Coastal Plan for short.    The Coastal Commission recommended

13    to the Legislature that development not be permitted to

14    interfere with public access rights that were acquired

15    through historic use and custom, those terms signifying,

16    generally, as described in the Coastal Plan, the various

17    kinds of public activities to and along the shoreline

18    throughout the state’s history, certainly since statehood

19    and possibly even before.

20    Q.    Was that section amended?

21    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    Vague.

22    THE COURT:    Objection is sustained.

23    THE WITNESS:    The legislative history —

24    THE COURT:    Stop.

25    THE WITNESS:    I’m sorry.

26    THE COURT:    The objection was sustained.

1    THE WITNESS:    Oh, I’m sorry, Your Honor.

2    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Did the Senate amend that

3    section?

4    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    Vague.

5    THE COURT:    Objection is overruled.

6    THE WITNESS:    The legislative history indicates

7    that the provision in the introduced bill at 30272 was

8    subsequently amended on April 19, 1976.

9    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) And if you would turn the page

10    of the large demonstrative exhibit.

11    Can you point out to the Court how this section

12    was amended?

13    A.    The section was amended in several parts.    Again,

14    in Senate Bill 1579, the legislative history indicates on

15    April 19, 1976, by, first of all, the entirety of

16    Section 30272 being stricken — that is shown by cross-outs

17    or deletion — and a substitute provision being introduced

18    at Section 30242, which is shown in italics, the standard

19    legislative format, to show deletions and newly added or

20    amended language.

21    The new language is both more concise and, in

22    specific parts, at Line 34 of Section 30242.

23    MR. BUESCHER:    Your Honor, the document speaks

24    for itself.

25    THE COURT:    I appreciate that, but he can expound

26    on what — how he interprets that.

1    So go ahead.

2    THE WITNESS:    Thank you.

3    The legislative history indicates that the

4    legislative intent was, in the first instance, to, in

5    addition to the word “development,” which is a Coastal

6    Program term of art, to add “or activity,” as a further

7    class of human behavior, that shall not interfere with the

8    public’s right of access.

9    The second amendment is the introduction of the

10    concept of the right of access to the coast generally as

11    opposed to the specific coastal beaches that were

12    previously referenced in Section, now stricken, 30272.

13    Furthermore, at Line 36 of Section 30242, the

14    legislative history indicates the legislative intent to,

15    verbatim, pick up the — or to pick up the language, which

16    is now amended from the Coastal Plan, that the public’s

17    right of access was required to be — needed to be

18    acquired through use, rather than historic use or

19    historical use, through custom or through legislative

20    authorization.

21    And, finally, the revision to the last phrase at

22    Lines 37 to 39 of Section 30242, which both reincorporated

23    the reference to coastal beaches, both sandy and rocky

24    beaches, from previous Section 30272, but added the

25    modifier and thereby broadened the scope by utilizing the

26    phrase, “including, but not limited to.”

1    So, in consequence, the revision to

2    Section 30242, the amended language, was both more

3    specific in terms of the range of use, but also was

4    geographically or spatially broader by going beyond

5    coastal beaches where public rights of access were to be

6    protected from development or activity by extending inland

7    from those coastal beaches to some undefined locale within

8    the proposed coastal zone.

9    Q.    And do you have Exhibit Binder 1 in front of you,

10    the Defendants’ Exhibit 1?

11    THE COURT:    That would be Defendants 101; is that

12    true?

13    MR. ESSNER:    It’s Volume 1.

14    THE WITNESS:    I do.

15    (Defendants’ Exhibit No. 139-A Was Marked For

16    Identification.)

17    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) And I’m going to ask you to take

18    a look at Tab 139.    Take a look at Pages 229 through 259.

19    A.    Forgive me.    Pages 229 to —

20    Q.    On the lower right-hand sides, there’s little

21    numbers.

22    A.    Yes.

23    Q.    And it’s 229 through 259.

24    A.    I have briefly reviewed them, yes.

25    Q.    And those are documents that you produced in this

26    case; is that right?

1    A.    That is correct.

2    Q.    And what are those documents that we’ve just

3    identified?

4    A.    Those pages, 229 through 259, are a facsimile

5    copy of Senate Bill 1579 as amended in the Senate on

6    April 19, 1976.    The original of this document is in my

7    archived files in my office.

8    Q.    And the portion that is reflected on the

9    demonstrative that you’ve read through, that’s contained

10    within those exhibits?

11    Do you want to doublecheck?    I know you’re

12    precise.

13    A.    At Page 2 of 16 in the large format matrix that I

14    prepared under Item 2, excerpts from that facsimile,

15    April 19, 1976, amended Senate Bill 1579, are contained.

16    MR. ESSNER:    We would move Exhibit 139-A, Pages

17    229 through 259 into evidence.

18    THE COURT:    Any objection?

19    MR. BUESCHER:    Your Honor, our binders don’t have

20    page numbers on them.    So if I could have a copy to review,

21    I don’t anticipate I will have an objection to that.    I

22    will let you know shortly.

23    THE COURT:    Alright.    Thank you.    Pages 229 to

24    259 is what we’re talking about.

25    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) So let me make sure I

26    understand.

1    The word “history” was removed from

2    Section 30242; is that correct?

3    A.    The word “history” that had occurred previously

4    in Senate Bill 1579 as introduced was removed in

5    Section 30242 in the phrase at Line 36, “acquired through

6    use,” where “history” or “historical” was removed — was

7    stricken, was no longer shown.

8    Q.    And based on your understanding of the

9    legislative intent, what was the significance of that?

10    A.    The striking or deletion of a modifier term, that

11    speaks to — constitutes clear legislative intent that the

12    Legislature intended a range of use or a type of use

13    different than historical use as that term is commonly

14    defined by the dictionary as being used in the past of

15    California’s existence as a Euro-American society.

16    Q.    Can I ask you to turn to Page 7 of 16 on that

17    demonstrative we gave you.

18    A.    Page 7 of 16?

19    Q.    Yes.

20    MR. BUESCHER:    Your Honor, briefly while he’s

21    doing that, I have no objection to the introduction of

22    those pages.    I would note if the relevant portions are

23    excerpted into the demonstrative, that it may be

24    cumulative, but I have no objection to the evidence other

25    than that.

26    MR. ESSNER:    And can we admit the demonstrative

1    into evidence and then we don’t have to refer to the

2    individual excerpts?

3    MR. BUESCHER:    I have questions for Mr. Dall

4    about the demonstrative as to why it was not provided to us

5    previously to today.

6    MR. ESSNER:    Well —

7    THE COURT:    That’s a different issue.

8    MR. BUESCHER:    But that’s a separate issue.

9    THE COURT:    Alright.    Well, here is what I’m

10    going to do:    I’m going to take our afternoon recess, and

11    you can discuss that.    Fifteen-minute recess.    Thank you.

12    (Recess Taken.)

13    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Alright.    Let me see if I can

14    speed this up just a little bit.

15    What happened to the Beilenson Bill?

16    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    Vague.

17    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) What happened — what is the

18    Beilenson Bill?

19    A.    The Beilenson Bill was the California Coastal

20    Zone Conservation Act of 1976 and introduced as in SB-1579.

21    Q.    And what happened to that bill?

22    A.    After Senator Beilenson did incredible work in

23    advancing his legislation on behalf of the

24    Coastal Commission, the Sierra Club and others, in his own

25    committee, another member from West Hollywood

26    surprised — somewhat surprisingly voted against the bill

1    and thereby caused the bill to fail for lack of one vote in

2    the Senate Finance Committee.    At that point, the Beilenson

3    Bill, SB-1579, died.

4    Q.    What is SB-1277?

5    A.    SB-1277 was a measure dealing with the

6    California Environmental Quality Act that was introduced in

7    June of 1975 by Senator Smith.

8    Q.    And did anything — was there any nexus between

9    the Beilenson Bill and Senator Smith’s bill?

10    A.    Yes.

11    Q.    What was it?

12    A.    The Smith Bill, Senate Bill 1277, was opposed by

13    the Brown administration when it was pending in the

14    Assembly Policy Committee in January of 1976.

15    The chairman of the Assembly Policy Committee,

16    Charles Warren, indicated that the bill would not move, but

17    rather that there would be hearings on the

18    California Environmental Quality Act.    And on the basis of

19    that, he sequestered the bill as part of a legislative

20    strategy to have a backup or so-called “coastal life boat

21    bill” if and when the Beilenson coastal bill died.

22    Q.    And so did the Beilenson coastal bill get

23    incorporated into the Smith Bill?

24    A.    It did.    In negotiations and first on June 18,

25    1976, and subsequently the substance, although not

26    verbatim, of the Beilenson SB-1579 legislation was

1    incorporated into Senate Bill 1277 by Senator Smith and the

2    previous California Environmental Quality Act sections were

3    stricken.

4    Q.    I want to focus your attention, if I could, on

5    the SB-1277 as introduced on June 19, 1975, and that’s on

6    Page 12 of 16 in your demonstrative.

7    Do you have that?

8    A.    I apologize, counsel.    Page 12 of 16 on my matrix

9    shows Senate Bill 1277 as amended in Assembly August 12th, 10    1976.
11    Q.    I’m sorry.    That one is what I wanted to focus

12    on.

13    A.    The latest version is always at the top.

14    Q.    Okay.    So do you see that it — did it carry

15    over, any language reflecting the fact that development

16    shall not interfere with the public’s right of access?

17    A.    It did.    It carried forward here at

18    Section 30211, beginning at Line 8, the language that

19    we — I previously testified to in Senate Bill 1579.

20    Q.    And that language included the word “custom;”

21    correct?

22    A.    It did.

23    Q.    Again, what was the significance of the word

24    “custom” in that section?

25    A.    The word “custom” in the legislative history of

26    the 1976 Coastal Act derives from recommendations of the

1    Coastal Commission in the 1975 Coastal Plan to essentially

2    signify customary behavior — types of behavior regarding

3    access to the coast to and along the shoreline that was

4    part of the behavior of people.

5    Q.    Can you give us some examples of that kind of

6    behavior?

7    A.    Customary behavior — Your Honor, if I may speak

8    from personal experience as a youth at that time or before,

9    involved us, as a group of college men going to the beach,

10    perhaps taking along some refreshments and some friends,

11    and spending a day at the beach.

12    Q.    On public or private property?

13    A.    I personally tried to err on the side of being on

14    public property.

15    Q.    And at some point was there some resistance in

16    the Assembly about including the word “custom” in

17    Section 30211?

18    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    Vague and leading.

19    THE COURT:    No.    He’s an expert witness, number

20    one.    Objection is overruled.

21    You may answer the question.

22    THE WITNESS:    Thank you, Your Honor.

23    When — the legislative history indicates that

24    when Senate Bill 1277, now amended to be the backup

25    coastal bill or the second coastal bill, came to the

26    Assembly floor, two legislators, Bill Craven from northern

1    San Diego County and Ken Maddy from Fresno, both

2    representing agricultural districts, objected strongly to

3    the provision of custom, the inclusion of the word

4    “custom” in Senate Bill 1277 as a criterion for public

5    access rights — for the determination of public access

6    rights in the coastal zone.

7    Q.    And did you write about that?

8    A.    I did.

9    (Defendants’ Exhibit No. 152 Was Marked For

10    Identification.)

11    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) And I’m going to ask you to turn

12    to Exhibit 152 and specifically on Page 4 — actually

13    before —

14    A.    Excuse me, counsel.    Is that in Volume 1 or in

15    Volume 2?

16    Q.    Volume 2.    Could you identify what Exhibit 152

17    is?

18    A.    Exhibit 152, at pages marked 1 through 5, are

19    pages from a coastal legislation monitoring memo that I

20    personally wrote, based on my personal presence at the

21    Assembly during floor consideration and voting, including

22    on amendments, proposed Senate Bill 1277 on August 13, 23    1976.
24    Q.    You actually witnessed the discussion on the

25    floor; is that right?

26    A.    Yes, I did.

1    Q.    And this is the document you prepared after

2    witnessing that discussion?

3    A.    In part, during and after.

4    Q.    Fair enough.

5    A.    In this capacity, I basically functioned as a

6    combination reporter and analyst.

7    Q.    And I’m going to ask you to turn to Page 10 of

8    that document, which is Exhibit 152-4.

9    And do you see the comments that you reported on

10    from Assemblyman Maddy.    Do you see that?

11    A.    Assemblyman Ken Maddy, yes.

12    Q.    And you reported — what did you report?

13    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    The document speaks

14    for itself.

15    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) What did you hear Mr. Maddy say

16    on    the    floor?
17            MR.    BUESCHER:    Objection.    Hearsay.

18    THE COURT:    Objection is overruled.

19    Go ahead.

20    THE WITNESS:    Assemblyman Maddy stated — and I

21    believe there’s a tape recording of this in the Assembly

22    archives — asked Speaker McCarthy, who was presenting

23    Senate Bill 1277 on the floor, what authority, if any,

24    there was for the use of the term, quote, “custom,” to

25    acquire public access to and along the shoreline.

26    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) And did this version of

1    Section 30211 get adopted into law?

2    A.    It didn’t —

3    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    Vague as to which

4    version we’re talking about.

5    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) I’m sorry.    On Page 12 of 16, as

6    amended, Assembly Bill — sorry.    State bill as amended on

7    August 12th, 1976, with the word “custom” in it, did it

8    get adopted into law?

9    A.    No.

10    Q.    What happened?

11    A.    Very briefly, Senate Bill 1277, after further

12    debate and other proposed amendments, was passed by the

13    Assembly and, under joint legislative rules, was

14    re-referred to the House of Origin, the State Senate, for

15    concurrence in the amendments to the bill that had been

16    added in the Assembly.

17    When Senate Bill 1277 came up for Senate floor

18    discussion and debate prior to a vote, considerable

19    controversy ensued by members of the State Senate.    They

20    articulated that controversy.    And the upshot was that on

21    the first roll call of senators present and voting,

22    Senate Bill 1277 could not achieve the necessary 21 votes

23    to be approved — for the concurrence in Assembly

24    amendments to be approved by the Senate.

25    Q.    So with respect to the passage of the

26    Coastal Act, what happened next?

1    A.    At that point, the bill was put on-call, which

2    is, in effect, a recess while other matters are — other

3    business is conducted.    And a series of negotiations in

4    Governor Brown’s conference room in the Capitol ensued,

5    that the governor convened between opponents and proponents

6    of Senate Bill 1277.

7    Q.    And, at some point, did the word “custom” get

8    removed from the proposed bill at 30211?

9    A.    Yes.    The legislative history indicates that

10    following the conclusion of those negotiations, another

11    bill, Assembly Bill 2948, was amended in relevant part to

12    strike the word “custom” from Section 30211.

13    Q.    And what was the significance of that in terms of

14    the legislative history, purpose and intent?

15    A.    The legislative history shows that

16    Assembly Bill 2948 was subsequently signed into law with

17    “custom” removed from Senate Bill 1277, stricken by

18    Governor Brown.    And the significance was that the

19    codified — the legislative history consequence of this

20    series of acts was that Section 30211, as signed into law

21    by Governor Brown at the end of the September of 1976,

22    provided solely that development shall not interfere with

23    the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired

24    through use or legislative authorization.    Those were the

25    only two criteria.    “Use” being the generic term for public

26    access rights by prescription and by dedication or by

1    easement that is accepted by a public agency or another

2    entity and opened for public use.

3    Q.    And by legislative authorization, what was the

4    intent of that?

5    A.    Legislative authorization is a term of art that

6    speaks to acts of the Legislature, bills.

7    Q.    Would eminent domain be legislative

8    authorization?

9    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    Calls for a legal

10    opinion.

11    THE COURT:    No.    I think he can answer the

12    question.

13    The objection is overruled.

14    THE WITNESS:    The Legislature has, to the best of

15    my recollection, in proceedings on bills, assigned or

16    awarded the power of eminent domain to take private

17    property for public purposes pursuant to compensation on a

18    case-by-case basis or on an agency basis.

19    (Defendants’ Exhibit No. 153 Was Marked For

20    Identification.)

21    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) I’m going to ask you to turn on

22    your matrix to Page 14 of 16, and this is actually

23    Exhibit 153 as marked.

24    So first on your demonstrative that you

25    prepared, do you see that the word “custom” is stricken

26    from the bill?

1    A.    On Page 14 of 16, my Item 13 on this matrix

2    relating to Assembly Bill 2948 shows the legislative

3    history of that bill as amended on August 25, 1976 at

4    Line 3, strikes the comma proceeding the word “custom” and

5    the comma after, at Line 3.

6    Q.    And if you could please turn to Exhibit 153.

7    And, more specifically, to Page 5 of Exhibit 153.

8    A.    Yes.

9    Q.    What is that document?

10    A.    That document is a facsimile reproduction of

11    Assembly Bill 2948 as amended in the Senate on August 25,

12    1976, Pages 8 and 9.

13    Q.    And on Page 5 — excuse me.

14    On Pages 8 and 9, which is what it shows on the

15    document, but we’ve numbered it Page 5 in the lower

16    right-hand corner, does it reflect a strike through the

17    word “custom”?

18    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    The document speaks

19    for itself.

20    THE COURT:    Well, it does speak for itself, but

21    he can answer the question.

22    The objection is overruled.

23    THE WITNESS:    At Page 8 at Line 3, the strikeout

24    of the comma and “custom” and the subsequent comma are the

25    same as in my matrix.

26    MR. ESSNER:    Your Honor, I would move 153 into

1    evidence.

2    THE COURT:    Any objection?

3    MR. BUESCHER:    No objection, Your Honor.

4    THE COURT:    Exhibit 153 is admitted.

5    (Defendants’ Exhibit No. 153 Was Admitted Into Evidence.)

6    MR. ESSNER:    I would move 152 into evidence.

7    THE COURT:    Any objection?

8    MR. BUESCHER:    No objection, Your Honor.

9    THE COURT:    Exhibit 152 is admitted.

10    (Defendants’ Exhibit No. 152 Was Admitted Into Evidence.)

11    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) In the last section of your

12    matrix, that reflects the — what was actually adopted in

13    Section 30211 in the Public Resource Code; is that right?

14    It’s the very last page.

15    A.    Page 16 of 16, the lower right hand enumeration

16    of my matrix Item 16, yes, is an excerpt from the — what,

17    in legislative parlance, is called the “chaptered” or

18    codified section of Public Resources Code Section 30211.

19    Q.    And the word “custom” does not exist; correct?

20    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    The document speaks

21    for itself.

22    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Is it your understanding —

23    THE COURT:    It does.

24    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) — that “custom” was removed?

25    A.    The word “custom” is not included in

26    Section 30211, correct.

1    Q.    And then going back to the original iteration of

2    the bill when introduced by Senator Beilenson, the word

3    “history” doesn’t exist there either, does it?

4    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    The document speaks

5    for itself.

6    THE COURT:    It does.    But we’re going to move

7    along.    Objection is overruled.

8    Go ahead.

9    THE WITNESS:    That is correct.    The word

10    “history” or “historical” does also not exist.

11    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Thank you.

12    Does the legislative history further discuss the

13    scope of public access requirements in new developments?

14    A.    It does.

15    Q.    What is the legislative history with respect to

16    public access requirements for new developments?

17    A.    The legislative history of the Coastal Act in

18    1976, based, again, on the recommendations of the

19    Coastal Commission in 1975 in the Coastal Plan, is

20    contained at Section 30212 in its 1976 ultimate enacted

21    form, codified form.

22    It provided for the maximization of public access

23    opportunities in new development projects, a subset of the

24    term “development,” and did so in the context of

25    protecting, again, private property rights, natural coastal

26    resources and public safety, and I think there was one

1    other criterion as well.

2    Q.    Do you have Exhibit 158 in front of you?    It’s

3    the one I handed you.    We’ll bring you a new copy.

4    A.    Yes, I do.

5    Q.    Could you turn to — it’s — on the top it’s

6    numbered, Page 53.    And on the — actually, we don’t have

7    Bates numbers on these.    So it’s just Page 53 on the top.

8    A.    Yes.

9    Q.    And it is Section 30274(b).

10    Do you see that?

11    A.    I do.

12    Q.    Is that what you were referring to earlier in

13    your testimony?

14    A.    Yes.    Section 30274 in the evolution of the

15    coastal bills in 1976 was the precursor section by

16    numbering to present Section 30212.

17    Q.    And what were they trying to protect in that

18    proposed legislation?

19    A.    In Subdivision B at Page 53 of then

20    Section 30274, the language beginning at Line 11,

21    references and implements the recommendation of the

22    Coastal Commission in the 1975 Coastal Plan with regard to

23    imposing — with regard to public, semi-public, commercial

24    and other visitor-serving developments to allow public

25    access on their grounds as part of their normal operations

26    through various devices and means.

1    Q.    What would be a commercial development that

2    allows public access?

3    A.    In the Coastal Commission’s formulation and

4    analysis in the 1975 coastal plan, commercial uses were

5    activities such as shopping centers, private camp grounds,

6    although they may also fall under recreational and

7    visitor-serving developments depending on the nature, but

8    to the extent that they were commercial businesses, they

9    would be commercial developments.

10    Q.    How would you characterize Martins Beach?

11    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    Beyond the scope.

12    THE COURT:    Response?

13    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Was Martins Beach either a

14    commercial, recreational and visitor

15    developing — visitor-serving development?

16    MR. BUESCHER:    Same objection, Your Honor.

17    THE COURT:    You have to lay a foundation as to

18    his familiarity.

19    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) You understand Martins Beach is

20    a paid-for accessed beach; is that right?

21    A.    I do, on the basis of having read

22    Coastal Commission documents pertaining to the coastal

23    access guide, yes.

24    Q.    How would you describe Martins Beach in the

25    context of this code section?

26    MR. BUESCHER:    Same objection, Your Honor.    This

1    isn’t about the legislative history of the act.    This is

2    about Martins Beach and his opinions about Martins Beach

3    and how it was specifically used.

4    THE COURT:    Okay.    So you’re saying it’s beyond

5    the scope of his designation?

6    MR. BUESCHER:    Yes, I apologize.

7    THE COURT:    Objection is sustained.

8    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Did this provision stay in the

9    act?

10    A.    This provision was amended — stricken, to the

11    best of my recollection, early on in one of the following

12    amended Senate Bills 1579 —

13    Q.    I’m sorry.    I thought you were done.

14    A.    From recollection, in the first policy committee

15    chaired by Senator John Nejedly.

16    Q.    And was it replaced by anything?

17    A.    It was not — I’m sorry.    The language contained

18    at Subdivision B on Page 53, starting at Line 11, was not

19    replaced in substance or paraphrased in any other part of

20    any of the subsequent coastal bills in 1976 or

21    subsequently.

22    Q.    Let’s turn to Section 301 — excuse me, 30212.

23    You’re familiar with that section?

24    A.    Yes.    In the Coastal Act?

25    Q.    Yes.

26    A.    I am.

1    Q.    What is that section?

2    A.    As the legislative history indicates that is

3    codified at present, it has three subparts, three

4    subdivisions, as I recall:

5    The first of which speaks to the maximization of

6    public access in new development projects subject to

7    criteria relating to private property and public rights an

8    so on.

9    Secondly, it contains language that was added in

10    the Legislature in 1978 and 1979, which sets forth

11    exemptions from the public access requirements for new

12    development projects.    Those — that set of amendments in

13    Subdivision B was introduced, and I personally worked on it

14    together with Peter Douglas, the former lobbyist for the

15    Coastal Commission, during those two years in my capacity

16    as a Sierra Club lobbyist.

17    Q.    What is an exemption?    What are you talking

18    about?

19    A.    I apologize.    The exemption is an exemption from

20    the coastal permit — Coastal Development Permit

21    requirement, which development in the coastal zone

22    generally has to obtain as a necessary entitlement for

23    construction or use.

24    Q.    And was — what was the legislative history about

25    exemptions for repair and maintenance activities?

26    A.    The legislative history from 197 — both from

1    1976 and from 1978 and ’79 indicates that legislators heard

2    from their constituents that the Proposition 20 Coastal

3    Commission was, in various manners, impeding repair and

4    maintenance of existing structures that predated the

5    effective date of the Coastal Act.

6    Q.    Would a fence be such a structure?

7    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    Calls for a legal

8    opinion.    Beyond the scope of the legislative history,

9    Your Honor.

10    THE COURT:    If there’s legislative history as to

11    a fence, he can answer the question.

12    So objection is overruled.

13    THE WITNESS:    The legislative history does

14    indicate — does speak to whether or not fences, be it on

15    agriculturally designated land or other land, constitutes

16    development.

17    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) What about gates?

18    MR. BUESCHER:    Same objection.

19    THE COURT:    Again, if there’s legislative

20    history, he can speak to that.

21    Objection is overruled.

22    THE WITNESS:    The legislative history speaks to

23    the point that gates are the movable part of fences.

24    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) And based on the legislative

25    history that you just described, do fences and gates

26    constitute new development in ag. zones?    Again, just on

1    the legislative history as you understand it.

2    MR. BUESCHER:    I’m going to make the same

3    objection, Your Honor.    Just because we’re calling it

4    “legislative history” doesn’t mean he’s not offering a

5    legal opinion.    It’s beyond the scope.

6    THE COURT:    I appreciate that, but he can give

7    that opinion as it is characterized.

8    The objection is overruled.

9    Go ahead.

10    THE WITNESS:    The legislative history of the 1976

11    Coastal Act, beginning with the Coastal Commission’s own

12    recommendations for the scope of the term “development” and

13    “structure” in the 1975 Coastal Plan, specifically speaks

14    to fences, including in the context of agricultural use.

15    And the legislative history of the coastal

16    program consisting of the Coastal Act and regulations and

17    associated documents promulgated by the Coastal Commission

18    pursuant to the Coastal Act, which, in material part,

19    includes the so-called “local coastal program” for

20    San Mateo County, specifically treats fences on

21    agriculturally designated so-called “planned agricultural

22    development lands” as not requiring a

23    Coastal Development Permit.

24    MR. BUESCHER:    Your Honor, I would object.    Move

25    to strike the last part of the answer.    That’s a legal

26    opinion about how to interpret the Coastal Act’s

1    administrative actions, including the local coastal

2    program.    That’s not about the legislative history.    It’s

3    beyond the scope.

4    MR. ESSNER:    It’s completely the legislative

5    history.

6    THE COURT:    The way the answer is phrased, it is

7    within his expertise as it is phrased.

8    So the objection is overruled.

9    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Same question:    Did they treat,

10    from a legislative historical perspective, gates any

11    different from fences?

12    A.    Not to my knowledge.

13    Q.    Why not?

14    A.    They were not treated differently.    “They” being

15    gates, were not treated differently.

16    Q.    Let’s talk about —

17    A.    Forgive me.

18    Q.    Oh?

19    A.    On private property where there were no

20    prescriptive easements adjudicated — or prescriptive

21    rights adjudicated by a court, this is the legislative

22    history as it is encapsuled in the Coastal Plan as the

23    Coastal Commission’s recommendation to the Legislature.

24    And the Legislature enacting the Coastal Act specifically

25    took cognizance in one of the introductory sections of the

26    Coastal Act — of the Coastal Plan.    In that context, the

1    Legislature was informed and did not require — did not

2    require that management practices, such as fences around

3    agricultural lands, be subject to the coastal permit

4    requirement.

5    MR. BUESCHER:    Your Honor, I would move to

6    strike.    What the Legislature or the statute does or does

7    not require is not about the history of how it was passed.

8    It’s about how it is interpreted and enforced.    It’s beyond

9    the scope.    It’s a legal opinion.

10    MR. ESSNER:    He phrased it in terms of

11    legislative intent.

12    THE COURT:    It’s his opinion as to what the

13    legislative intent was.    So that is what he’s here to offer

14    as his opinion.

15    So the objection is overruled.

16    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Did the Coastal Act speak to

17    any — was there any legislative intent for establishing

18    priorities within the coastal zone?

19    A.    Yes.

20    Q.    And what were the — what was the highest

21    priority?

22    A.    The legislative history from 1976 is clear that

23    the highest priorities for development in the coastal zone

24    are, number one, coastal-dependent industry, which is a

25    class of industry that requires a location on the coast,

26    the shoreline, to be able to function at all and, equally,

1    agricultural land.

2    Q.    Equally agricultural land?

3    A.    That is correct.

4    Q.    And did Jerry Smith speak to that issue at all

5    that you’re aware of?

6    A.    In the legislative history in 1976, after

7    the — after Senate Bill 1277 had been approved by the

8    Assembly, and the Senate concurring, Senator Smith, in

9    response to inquiries from constituents and lobbyists,

10    prepared, or had his staff prepare, and send —

11    Senator Smith to send, or directed his staff to send, a

12    letter to the Secretary of the Senate for publication in

13    the Senate Daily Journal.

14    The letter, to the best of my recollection, was

15    approximately August 26th, 1976, and the publication date

16    for the daily Senate journal was approximately three or

17    four days later.

18    Q.    I’m going to ask if you can turn in your binder

19    to Exhibit 139-A.    So that’s the first binder.    And it’s 20    Page 125, 126 and 127.
21    A.    Forgive me.    I have to wrestle the document.

22    I’m sorry, 139-A?

23    THE COURT:    It’s a different binder.

24    THE WITNESS:    Different binder?    I have it.

25    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Is this the letter that you were

26    referring to in your testimony?

1    A.    The document shown at Exhibit 139A-125 and -126

2    is the type script letter — it’s a facsimile of the type

3    script letter from Senator Smith to the Secretary of the

4    Senate.

5    Q.    And on Page 2 of the letter, is there a reference

6    to the agricultural use of lands?

7    A.    There is.

8    Q.    And did Mr. Smith then submit something to the

9    Senate journal?

10    A.    The letter to the Secretary of the Senate is a

11    request for publication of this letter to be published in

12    the daily journal of the Senate, yes.

13    MR. ESSNER:    We would move Exhibit 139-A, Pages

14    125, 126 and 127 into evidence.

15    THE COURT:    Any objection?

16    MR. BUESCHER:    No objection, Your Honor.

17    THE COURT:    Alright.    Exhibit 139-A, Pages 125,

18    126 and 127 are admitted.

19    (Defendants’ Exhibit No. 139-A-125, 126 and 127 Were

20    Admitted Into Evidence.)

21    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Senator Smith indicates in this

22    letter that SB-1277 does not — is not intended to, and

23    should not be construed, to authorize the

24    Coastal Commission to mandate, prescribe or otherwise

25    regulate agricultural operations or management practices.

26    Do you see that?

1    A.    I do.

2    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    The document speaks

3    for itself, Your Honor.

4    MR. ESSNER:    I just asked if he saw it.

5    MR. BUESCHER:    Fair enough.

6    THE COURT:    Okay.    Objection is overruled.

7    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Do you understand what the

8    legislative intent was with respect to preserving

9    agricultural operations?

10    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    Beyond the scope.

11    He’s asking about the intent, not the history.

12    MR. ESSNER:    I’ll rephrase the question.

13    THE COURT:    Objection is sustained.

14    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Do you understand what the

15    legislative history was with respect to preserving

16    agricultural operations on agricultural property?

17    A.    Yes.

18    Q.    Could you please explain that to the Court.

19    A.    The legislative history in the summer of 1976

20    with regard to the coastal bill, Senate Bill 1277, as — it

21    included articulation by the lobbyists and representatives

22    from the California Farm Bureau Federation, the

23    California Grange and other farming interests, including

24    from San Mateo County, with regard to the limitations that

25    the Coastal Commission, acting pursuant to the 1972

26    Proposition 20 Coastal Act, had imposed, or was set to have

1    imposed, and that, as a result, the farming interests, the

2    aforementioned people, asked various legislators to

3    clarify, essentially, that the Coastal Act, as contained in

4    Senate Bill 1277 and the associated two other bills, would

5    not debilitate or substantially interrupt existing farming,

6    agricultural practices or operations, including such items,

7    but not limited to, as enclosures, exclosures, farm roads,

8    tilling, storage of agricultural materials and so on.

9    Q.    With respect to agricultural uses, was there any

10    legislative intent on the issue of an accessory structure?

11    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    It’s not legislative

12    history.    It’s interpreting the statute.

13    MR. ESSNER:    I’ll rephrase.    Just a little

14    looseness of the lips.

15    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Was there any legislative

16    history on what an accessory structure was?

17    A.    The legislative history of the 1976 Coastal Act

18    includes the recommendation of the

19    California Coastal Commission in the Coastal Plan of

20    December 1975, wherein the Coastal Commission specifically

21    adopted a glossary of terms, definition of terms, one of

22    which defined terms is “development” and its subset

23    structure.    And, in that context, the Coastal Commission

24    recommended to the Legislature that accessory uses, such as

25    fences, not constitute regulatory development, structures

26    and, therefore, development, under the Coastal Commission’s

1    proposal for coastal legislation.

2    Q.    Were gates considered accessory structures based

3    on the legislative history?

4    THE COURT:    Hold on.

5    MR. BUESCHER:    I’ll make the same objection.

6    THE COURT:    Hold on a minute because we’re using

7    two different terms.    You talked about accessory structures

8    and then you talked about accessory uses.    So if you can

9    clarify that.

10    MR. ESSNER:    Could you please clarify that?

11    THE WITNESS:    I apologize, Your Honor.

12    The term to which I meant to refer were

13    “accessory structures,” which is a planning, zoning term

14    of art.    And I apologize for using the wrong wording.

15    THE COURT:    Thank you.    I don’t know where we are

16    at this point here.

17    So let’s see — let’s go back to the question

18    that was right after that.

19    (The Last Question Was Read Back As Above Recorded.)

20    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    Calls for a legal

21    opinion.

22    THE COURT:    The objection is overruled.

23    THE WITNESS:    The legislative history of the 1976

24    Coastal Act stands for — includes commentary by

25    stakeholders, agricultural operators, farmers, ranchers, in

26    which fences were, in their testimony or comments to

1    legislators or in public, including to me personally, were

2    gates and other enclosures or exclosures were considered

3    standard subset components of fencing associated with

4    agricultural lands.

5    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) So if you had an accessory

6    structure in agricultural lands, based on the legislative

7    history of the Coastal Act, do you need a

8    Coastal Development Permit to install it?

9    MR. BUESCHER:    Your Honor, objection.    Calls for

10    a legal opinion.    And that’s the ultimate question before

11    the Court.    And, again, the fact that we’re phrasing it as

12    legislative history doesn’t change the fact that he’s being

13    asked to opine as to whether a gate or the installation of

14    a gate requires a permit.

15    THE COURT:    Response?

16    MR. ESSNER:    Again, I just want to know about the

17    legislative history.

18    THE COURT:    Well, I think you can rephrase the

19    question.

20    So objection is sustained.

21    MR. BUESCHER:    Thank you, Your Honor.

22    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) By characterizing a fence or a

23    gate as an accessory structure, what was the legislative

24    history or intent with respect to

25    Coastal Development Permits?

26    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    Calls for a legal

1    opinion, Your Honor.

2    THE COURT:    He can testify as to the legislative

3    history.    In that regard only, you can testify to that.

4    Objection is overruled.

5    THE WITNESS:    The legislative history with regard

6    to the 1976 Coastal Act is, in sum, that gates are the

7    movable components of fences; and, therefore, are

8    recognized as essential or integral components of use of

9    land that is designated for agricultural.    That is the

10    legislative history.

11    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) And how does that relate to,

12    from a historical perspective, the need to get a

13    Coastal Development Permit?

14    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    Legal opinion.    Beyond

15    the scope.

16    THE COURT:    Again, you can only answer that

17    question if there’s specific legislative history that you

18    can relate to that.

19    So go ahead.

20    THE WITNESS:    Thank you.

21    In the legislative deliberations and

22    communications to legislators that were made public to me

23    and others during 1976 on the Coastal Act, or coastal

24    bills, there was testimony, commentary made by farmers,

25    ranchers, agriculturists with regard to a range of

26    agricultural practices, structures, management operations

1    that included the maintenance, repair and location or

2    improvement of fences and gates.

3    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Let’s move on.    Let’s talk about

4    the legislative history on structures that predated the

5    implementation of the Coastal Act.

6    What was the legislative history for structures

7    that existed prior to the Coastal Act?

8    A.    The legislative history with regard to the 1976

9    Coastal Act is that structures that predate the effective

10    date of the 1976 Coastal Act, January 1, 1977, do not

11    require a coastal permit to continue to be in existence or

12    in functionality, in use.

13    Furthermore, the 1976 Coastal Act recognizes that

14    the 1972 Proposition 20 Coastal Act, which was in effect

15    only for four years, with regard to permit regulatory

16    matters, from February 1, 1973 until January 1, 1977.    The

17    recognition was that within the area for which the

18    Proposition 20 Coastal Act, the 1972 Coastal Act applied,

19    development, structures that predated that effective date

20    of February 1, 1973, were allowed to — could continue in

21    existence and be used without having to obtain a

22    Coastal Development Permit.

23    Q.    Is there any legislative history that shows the

24    intent within the Coastal Act to regulate the contents of

25    signs or billboards?

26    A.    The legislative history of the 1976 Coastal Act,

1    as expressed in the Coastal Commission’s recommendations

2    contained in the 1975 Coastal Plan at Policy 122, perhaps

3    Subdivision C, in that recommendation to the Legislature,

4    the Coastal Commission recommended that it be authorized to

5    control the content of signage.

6    Q.    And was that eventually adopted in the

7    Coastal Act?

8    A.    The legislative history shows that the

9    Legislature did not adopt that recommendation.

10    Q.    You’re referring to the Coastal Act — is that

11    the — I’m sorry.    My colleague corrected me.

12    You’re referring to the Coastal Plan, which

13    predated the Coastal Act, right?

14    A.    Yes.

15    Q.    Could you show to the Court what you’re talking

16    about?

17    A.    I apologize for the condition of the document,

18    but it has a few miles on it.

19    This was the document prepared, 454 pages, by the

20    Coastal Commission and submitted to the Legislature and the

21    governor and the people of California in December of 1975

22    to form the basis for the 1976 coastal legislation.

23    THE COURT:    I saw that up on your witness stand

24    there.    So I realize what that is.    Thank you.    But I’m

25    confused.    Let’s go back here for just a minute.

26    So I think I do now understand.    So you’re

1    saying the Coastal Commission recommended that it be

2    authorized to control signage, control the concept of

3    signage, but that was not adopted.    Is that what you’re

4    saying?

5    THE WITNESS:    That is correct.

6    THE COURT:    I wanted to make sure I understand

7    that.    Thank you.

8    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Is there any legislative history

9    dealing with the issue of requiring a

10    Coastal Development Permit to repair something that is

11    destroyed as a result of natural consequences?

12    A.    May I ask you to restate your question, please.

13    Q.    Sure.    Does the legislative history of the

14    Coastal Act provide that you restore, for example, a

15    parking lot eroded by natural forces?    Legislative history.

16    MR. BUESCHER:    Calls for a legal opinion.

17    THE WITNESS:    The —

18    THE COURT:    Hold on.

19    THE WITNESS:    Oh, I’m sorry.

20    THE COURT:    Well, I guess the first question is:

21    Is there any legislative history with regard to that?

22    Number one.

23    THE WITNESS:    The legislative history of the

24    Coastal Act in 1976 does not require restoration or

25    application for a Coastal Development Permit for

26    restoration of, for instance, a parking lot destroyed by a

1    natural disaster or a natural event.

2    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Is there any legislative history

3    that you’re aware of that regulates the ability of a land

4    owner to hire private security?

5    MR. BUESCHER:    Your Honor, I’m going to object

6    again.    The legislative history doesn’t regulate anything.

7    It doesn’t require anything.    It’s the process of how the

8    act was passed.    This is a legal opinion beyond the scope.

9    MR. ESSNER:    I’ll withdraw the question and

10    rephrase.

11    THE COURT:    Alright.    I think you’re getting into

12    specifics that I would assume are not covered in the

13    legislative history.    So if you want to broaden the

14    question.

15    Objection is sustained.

16    MR. BUESCHER:    Thank you, Your Honor.

17    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) What is the legislative

18    history — and now we’re talking about 30106 — of the

19    term “change in intensity of use of water”?

20    A.    The legislative history of that subsection of the

21    definition of development in Section 30106 derives from the

22    Coastal Commission’s recommendations in the Coastal Plan to

23    the Legislature.    Those recommendations were based on the

24    Coastal Commission’s own experience with regard to the

25    legislative history of the Proposition 20 Coastal Act.

26    There are numerous specific instances where the

1    Coastal Commission, including in the Coastal Plan

2    recommendations to the Legislature, addresses the

3    importance of being able to regulate changes in intensity

4    of use of either ocean water for power plant cooling, for

5    instance, or riverine or stream water for various municipal

6    purposes or extraction of ground water for water wells and

7    similar purposes.

8    Q.    And what is the legislative intent or history of

9    the phrase “change in access to water”?

10    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection as to the intent.

11    MR. ESSNER:    I’m sorry.

12    THE COURT:    Objection is sustained.

13    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) I apologize.    My fault.

14    What is the legislative history of the phrase

15    “change in access to water” in Section 30106?

16    A.    The legislative history of the subphrase “access

17    to water” or “change in intensity of access to water,” is,

18    again, derived from and represented in the

19    Coastal Commission’s recommendations to the Legislature in

20    the Coastal Plan for 1976 coastal legislation, wherein the

21    Coastal Commission, in many more words, makes clear that

22    the reference of the term “access to water,”

23    intensification of access to water, first of all, relates

24    to public access, not private access to water.

25    The legislative history from 1976, and

26    subsequently, is very clear that the Legislature did not

1    intend and so indicated — legislators so indicated on the

2    record in proceedings that private activity on private

3    property that constituted access to water was not a

4    regulatory activity subject to obtaining a coastal permit.

5    MR. BUESCHER:    Your Honor, I would move to strike

6    everything after the Legislature did not intend.    That’s

7    not the legislative history.    It’s the intent of the

8    statute.    It’s beyond the scope.

9    THE COURT:    Let me look at this here.

10    Alright.    Any response?

11    MR. ESSNER:    Was that the — could I ask a

12    follow-up?

13    THE COURT:    First of all, let me rule.

14    So based on — the Court is going to

15    strike — hold on a minute — strike the words “the

16    legislative history from 1976 and subsequently is very

17    clear,” et cetera.    That portion will be stricken.

18    MR. BUESCHER:    Thank you, Your Honor.

19    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Let’s not talk about the

20    legislative intent.    Let’s talk about the legislative

21    history only.    Okay?

22    Based on your knowledge of the legislative

23    history, what was the term “change in intensity of water”

24    related to with respect to 30106?

25    MR. BUESCHER:    Same objection, Your Honor.

26    MR. ESSNER:    He hasn’t answered.

1    MR. BUESCHER:    I apologize.    It’s beyond the

2    scope.

3    THE COURT:    Let me get back here.    No.    He can

4    answer that question.

5    The objection is overruled.

6    THE WITNESS:    As I understand the question, it

7    was with regard to the legislative history of the phrase

8    change in intensity of —

9    MR. ESSNER:    No.    “Change in access to water.”

10    THE COURT:    You said, “change in intensity.”

11    MR. ESSNER:    Then, that was my mistake.

12    I’m sorry.    I’ll ask it again.

13    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) What is the legislative history

14    of the phrase “change in access to water”?

15    MR. BUESCHER:    Objection.    Asked and answered.

16    THE COURT:    Well, no.    He didn’t get it out

17    correctly.

18    So objection is overruled.

19    THE WITNESS:    The legislative history in that

20    regard was — from 1976 with regard to the coastal

21    legislation that became the Coastal Act, was that the term

22    “access” meant public access rather than private access to

23    water.

24    And, secondly, that the legislative history

25    stands for the proposition that the public access to water

26    was in the form of prescriptive rights or easements for

1    access that had been dedicated and accepted by a receiving

2    entity or agency.

3    Q.    (By Mr. Essner) Have you completed your answer?

4    A.    Yes.

5    MR. ESSNER:    Thank you.    Your witness.

6    MS. YOB:    Hang on.    Just one cleanup matter,

7    Your Honor.

8    I want to clarify whether Exhibit 139-A, Pages

9    229 to 259, have been admitted into evidence?

10    THE COURT:    No.    We left that off before the

11    recess.

12    MR. BUESCHER:    I appreciate that, Your Honor.    We

13    had a chance to look at those.    I have no objection to

14    those being admitted into evidence.

15    THE COURT:    Alright.    So those pages will be

16    admitted.

17    (Defendants’ Exhibit No. 139-A-229-259, Was Admitted Into

18    Evidence.)



21    Q.    Good afternoon, Mr. Dall.    My name is

22    Eric Buescher.    We previously met when I took your

23    deposition; correct?

24    A.    Counselor, good afternoon, yes.

25    THE COURT:    I assume we’re not going to complete

26    this in ten minutes?

1    MR. BUESCHER:    I will try my best to do that.    I

2    will be brief, though.

3    MR. ESSNER:    If we can get it done in 15, we will

4    rest.

5    THE COURT:    Well, we’ll see.

6    MR. ESSNER:    Create a little incentive.

7    Q.    (By Mr. Buescher) You testified that the

8    legislative history, and eventually the 1976 statute

9    itself, is clear that the Coastal Act must be implemented

10    constitutionally; is that correct?

11    A.    I testified with regard to the private property

12    rights component, yes.

13    Q.    It was eventually codified in the statute that

14    private property rights must be protected in a

15    constitutional manner; correct?

16    A.    That is correct.

17    Q.    You testified about the legislative history of

18    what is now Section 30211; correct?

19    A.    I did.

20    Q.    Section 30211 refers to development that is

21    undertaken subject to a permit; correct?

22    A.    On its face, it does not say that.

23    Q.    Does the legislative history indicate whether it

24    refers to development taken subject to a permit?

25    A.    With respect to Section 30211?

26    Q.    Yes, sir.

1    A.    The short answer is that since Section 30211 is a

2    part of the substantive conservation and development

3    standards for the regulatory program established by the

4    Legislature in the Coastal Act, the term “development” is

5    reasonably — it stands for the proposition of development

6    that is — that occurs after the effective date and is

7    within the boundaries of that regulatory program.

8    Q.    And that regulatory program, in general terms, is

9    the permit process, correct, the Coastal Development Permit

10    process?

11    A.    The permit process and the exemptions to the

12    permit process, yes.

13    Q.    I appreciate that.    Thank you.

14    There are, in fact, exemptions to a permit?    You

15    could apply for an exemption to a

16    Coastal Development Permit; correct?

17    A.    Exemptions are exemptions on their face under the

18    legislative history as well as potentially subject to

19    regulatory agency sign-off.

20    Q.    And Section 30211, as it was codified, is

21    direction to the administrative body as to how to decide on

22    permits?

23    A.    In part.

24    Q.    It is distinct from the definition of development

25    in the statute; correct?

26    A.    Forgive me.    It —

1    Q.    I apologize.    I’ll ask that differently.

2    Section 30211 is distinct from the definition of

3    development as codified in the statute; correct?

4    A.    30211 is not a definition, that is correct.

5    Q.    I wanted to make sure I understood your

6    testimony.

7    With respect to Senate Bill 1277 as — when it

8    was in the Assembly — and this is on Page 12 of your

9    demonstrative, as amended August 12, 1976?

10    A.    Forgive me.    I am looking for Page 12.    You said

11    Page 12?

12    Q.    Correct.

13    MS. YOB:    Your Honor, may I hand him another copy

14    just for —

15    THE COURT:    Yes.

16    THE WITNESS:    It was buried.    I found it.

17    Thank you.

18    With regard to Page 12 of 16?

19    Q.    (By Mr. Buescher) Page 12 of 16, correct.    That

20    Section 30211, that’s reflected on the bottom of that

21    page —

22    A.    Yes.

23    Q.    — that passed the Assembly as it’s reflected

24    there?

25    A.    That passed the Assembly as shown at Lines 8

26    through 12, yes.

1    Q.    Okay.    Thank you.    And then the “custom” was

2    removed later by the Senate, not the Assembly; correct?

3    A.    The reference to “custom” was removed in authors’

4    amendments to Assembly Bill 2948 when it was pending in the

5    Senate.

6    Q.    On concurrence; correct?

7    A.    No.    No.    Assembly bills do not go to the Senate

8    for concurrence.    Assembly bills go to the Assembly for

9    concurrence, if amended in the Senate.

10    Q.    Thank you.

11    Can you tell me which legislative body removed

12    the word “custom” from what eventually became the

13    Coastal Act?

14    A.    The removal was drafted by Senator Smith and his

15    staff, and it was carried in the Vehicle AB-2948, the

16    legislative author of which was Assemblyman Hart from

17    Santa Barbara.

18    The action — the amendment to strike “custom” at

19    Line 10 in the August 12th version of Senate Bill 1277 via

20    AB-2948, occurred in the Senate.    The amendments were made

21    in the Senate on August 25, 1976.

22    Q.    Thank you.

23    You’re familiar with the individuals who work as

24    Coastal Commission staff currently, correct, just in

25    general?

26    A.    I know them.

1    Q.    Do you know who Jo Ginsberg, Nancy Cave and

2    Rudy Papp are?

3    A.    I know the two former ladies.

4    Q.    Do you know Alex Halpern?

5    A.    I know of him.

6    Q.    With respect to the three individuals that you

7    know or know of, do any of those people have authority to

8    make an ultimate decision on a Coastal Development Permit?

9    MR. ESSNER:    Objection.    Calls for a legal

10    conclusion.

11    THE WITNESS:    No.

12    THE COURT:    Hold on just a minute.

13    THE WITNESS:    Sorry.    I apologize.

14    THE COURT:    It’s okay.    Let me look at the

15    question.

16    Alright.    And your objection is beyond the scope

17    of his expertise?

18    MR. ESSNER:    Yes.

19    THE COURT:    But, apparently, he does know that.

20    So do you want to speak to that?

21    MR. ESSNER:    It calls for a legal conclusion.

22    It’s beyond the scope of his expertise.

23    THE COURT:    Objection is sustained.

24    The answer will be stricken.

25    Q.    (By Mr. Buescher) Does the statute, the 1976

26    Coastal Act and its subsequent amendments, provide for the

1    roles of individuals that can make final, ultimate

2    decisions on Coastal Development Permits?

3    MR. ESSNER:    Objection.    Goes beyond the scope.

4    Calls for a legal conclusion.

5    THE COURT:    Again, you have talked about the

6    legislative history, so if you want to phrase it in that

7    fashion.

8    MR. BUESCHER:    Thank you, Your Honor.

9    Q.    (By Mr. Buescher) Does the legislative history

10    of the Coastal Act provide for any indication as to what

11    roles people — what roles of employment have authority to

12    make ultimate determinations on coastal development

13    applications?

14    A.    Forgive me.    What roles on employment have —

15    MR. ESSNER:    Objection.    Vague.

16    MR. BUESCHER:    I’ll clarify that portion.

17    Q.    (By Mr. Buescher) You understand there’s a

18    difference between, for example, a Coastal Commission

19    staff person and a coastal commissioner; correct?

20    A.    Yes.

21    Q.    Does the legislative history provide as to which

22    of those different roles have ultimate authority to make

23    determinations on a Coastal Development Permit application?

24    A.    The succinct answer to your question is that

25    coastal commissioners have discretionary authority, but

26    pursuant to the legislative history of the Coastal Act,

1    certain functions are delegated to the executive director,

2    who, in turn, may or may not delegate functions to staff,

3    if such delegation has, in fact, been properly authorized.

4    The answer to your question is compound.

5    Q.    So I want to understand your answer.

6    Without a properly authorized dedication

7    of — delegation of authority from a commissioner to an

8    executive director to a staff, the legislative history of

9    the statute would require that the commissioner make that

10    ultimate decision?

11    MR. ESSNER:    Objection.    Argumentative.    Beyond

12    the scope.

13    THE COURT:    Well, it’s not argumentative.

14    But do you understand the question?    Let’s start

15    there.

16    THE WITNESS:    Yes.

17    THE COURT:    Okay.    Again, relating it to the

18    legislative history, can you answer that question?

19    THE WITNESS:    Yes.

20    THE COURT:    Go ahead.

21    THE WITNESS:    The legislative history of the 1976

22    Coastal Act does not authorize or vest any authority to

23    make decisions in any one commissioner.

24    Q.    (By Mr. Buescher) The commissioners in general?

25    MR. ESSNER:    Objection.    Vague.

26    THE COURT:    Alright.    Restate the question.

1    Objection is sustained.

2    Q.    (By Mr. Buescher) How many coastal commissioners

3    are there?

4    A.    The legislatively authorized membership of the

5    Coastal Commission consists presently of 15, I believe,

6    including several ex-officio coastal commissioners.    It has

7    from time to time been 16.

8    Q.    And the same question I asked before, absent a

9    proper authorized delegation of authority from those 15 or

10    16 coastal commissioners to an executive director to a

11    staff person, the commissioners have the ultimate authority

12    to make decisions on Coastal Development Permit

13    applications; correct?

14    MR. ESSNER:    Objection.    Beyond the scope.

15    THE COURT:    Again —

16    MR. BUESCHER:    Pursuant to the legislative

17    history?

18    MR. ESSNER:    Come on, that’s —

19    THE COURT:    Rephrase the question, please.

20    Objection is sustained.

21    MR. BUESCHER:    I’ll move on, Your Honor.

22    Q.    (By Mr. Buescher) During your deposition, you

23    expressed the opinions that you intend to offer at trial;

24    correct?

25    A.    I did.

26    Q.    And you identified public access as one of the

1    five to ten principal objectives in passing the

2    Coastal Act; correct?

3    A.    That is correct.

4    Q.    And you identified the other objectives as public

5    recreation — one of the other objectives as public

6    recreation; correct?

7    A.    That is one of the ten, yes.

8    Q.    One was agricultural and preservation of land

9    forms; correct?

10    A.    That is — among others, yes.

11    Q.    And one was land uses; correct?

12    A.    I’m sorry?

13    Q.    Was one of those other principal objectives that

14    you identified land uses?

15    A.    To the extent that land uses reflect the priority

16    scheme in the legislative history of the Coastal Act, yes.

17    Q.    You identified concentration of urban development

18    and location of public infrastructure as well; correct?

19    A.    That is correct.

20    Q.    And you also testified that balanced protection

21    of private property rights and environmental resources or

22    coastal resources were part of the — part of what Senator,

23    and later Justice, Smith testified about in — on the floor

24    or in speeches related to the passage of the Coastal Act;

25    correct?

26    A.    No.

1    MR. BUESCHER:    Your Honor, I would like to read

2    from the witness’ deposition.

3    THE WITNESS:    I —

4    THE COURT:    Hold on.    Stop just a minute.

5    Yes.    You’re offering a portion of the

6    deposition, but let me just get a sense of where we’re

7    going here.

8    MR. BUESCHER:    Just very briefly.    That’s what he

9    testified to at deposition when I asked him.

10    THE COURT:    I’m not talking about that.    I was

11    talking overall, how long are we going to be?

12    MR. BUESCHER:    Less than — I would imagine,

13    unless something surprising happens, before 4:40 I’ll be

14    done by that time.

15    THE COURT:    I appreciate that the witness is

16    coming from Sacramento.    I’m trying to accommodate him.    On

17    the other hand, again, we don’t want to go too long for

18    staff purposes.

19    MR. BUESCHER:    I will not be long, Your Honor.

20    THE COURT:    So you’re going to read from the

21    deposition.

22    Could I have the deposition, please.

23    Could you point to the page, please.

24    MR. BUESCHER:    Yes.    On Page 175, starting at

25    Line 22.

26    THE COURT:    Thank you.    Go ahead.

BUESCHER:    I’ll note there was a
question at
2    Line 14.
3        THE    WITNESS:    Excuse me, Your Honor.    May I have
4    a copy?
5        THE    COURT:    Usually, the witness —
6        MR.    BUESCHER:    I don’t have an extra    copy for the
7    witness.
8        MS.    YOB:    We do.
9        THE    COURT:    Yes.

10    Q.    (By Mr. Buescher) There was a question at

11    Line 14:    “And what are those other principal objectives

12    aside from public access?”

13    THE COURT:    Stop just a minute.    Let him get

14    oriented here, please.

15    Q.    (By Mr. Buescher) I apologize, Mr. Dall.

16    Do you have that in front of you?

17    A.    I do.

18    Q.    And then at Line 22, the testimony:

19    “My recollection is that he actually,

20    at one point, ‘he,’ Senator Smith,

21    testified to the balanced protection of

22    private property rights and, my words,

23    environmental resources or coastal

24    resources.”

25    Do you recall that testimony?

26    A.    I do.

1    Q.    And is that testimony that Senator Smith gave?

2    A.    That is testimony that Senator Smith gave.

3    Q.    And Senator Smith, later Justice Smith, also

4    testified that public participation was a goal of the

5    Coastal Act; correct?

6    A.    Senator Smith was not Justice Smith at that

7    point.    That was my comment.

8    Q.    Is that one of the things that Senator Smith

9    testified to —

10    A.    Forgive me.

11    Q.    — public participation?

12    A.    It was.

13    Q.    And that he also mentioned reliance on local

14    government to implement the Coastal Act; correct?

15    A.    He did.

16    Q.    And you would agree with Senator, later

17    Justice Smith, that public access was an important factor

18    in the passage of the Coastal Act; correct?

19    A.    Public access in the legislative history in 1976

20    was both a very high objective of the proponents of the

21    1976 Coastal Act and also the albatross of the first

22    coastal bill, Senator Beilenson’s coastal bill, because

23    precisely over public access, Senator Beilenson was unable

24    to muster the necessary seven vote majority in the Senate

25    Finance Committee when one of his colleagues from

26    West Hollywood objected on the one hand that the

1    Coastal Commission, or the coastal program, wasn’t doing

2    enough for public access by various techniques while, on

3    the other hand, other members of the Finance Committee

4    indicated that they would not vote for the bill if there

5    were any additional provisions or strengthening of

6    provisions or revision of provisions from what was

7    contained in the bill at that time.

8    Q.    And when you refer to Senator Beilenson’s bill,

9    that’s Senate Bill 1579 that we marked as an exhibit today,

10    correct?

11    A.    SB-1579 as amended on May 10 or amended on

12    June 1st, 1976, that is correct.

13    Q.    Thank you, sir.

14    And you would also agree that in the legislative

15    history, it was important to be able to balance private

16    property rights with public access objectives; correct?

17    A.    As they are set forth in the legislation, yes.

18    Q.    With respect to Senate Bill 1579, Senator Smith

19    was a co-author of that bill; correct?

20    A.    No.

21    Q.    Was he a sponsor?

22    A.    No.

23    MR. BUESCHER:    Can I ask you to look at

24    Defense Exhibit 158.

25    May I approach, Your Honor?

26    THE COURT:    Yes.

1    Q.    (By Mr. Buescher) That reflects Smith at the

2    top; correct?

3    A.    Senator Smith is shown as one of six authors.

4    Q.    Thank you, sir.

5    Prior to today, did you speak to anybody about

6    the testimony of any witness who has testified in this

7    trial?

8    A.    I have not.

9    Q.    Did you review a transcript of Justice Smith’s

10    testimony in this trial?

11    A.    I have not.

12    Q.    You indicated you’re being paid by

13    Hopkins & Carley; correct?

14    A.    That is correct.

15    Q.    Can you estimate how many hours you’ve spent on

16    this lawsuit?

17    A.    At present, I do not have a current running

18    total, but I would estimate between 125 and 150 hours.

19    Q.    And your rate is $500 an hour; correct?

20    A.    That is correct.

21    Q.    And so you have billed, or will at some point

22    bill, between 62,000 and $75,000; correct?

23    A.    If that’s the arithmetic of the two numbers.

24    Q.    Is that a “yes”?

25    A.    I have not reviewed a bill to the client and,

26    therefore, I have not made a determination as to what the

1    bill to the client would be.

2    Q.    You would expect it to be between 60 and $75,000?

3    A.    On that order, yes.

4    MR. BUESCHER:    Thank you, sir.

5    I have no further questions.