Enforcement
before facts.
The California Coastal Commission imposed more than $2.5 million in penalties after collapsing disputed ownership, easement, permit, and access issues into one public story. That story was simple: John Levy blocked coastal access.
The record is not simple.
This is what happens when one agency controls the investigation, the record, the hearing, the penalty, and the public narrative.
The Coastal Commission fined John Levy more than $2.5 million after treating a never-accepted trail easement and a gate on neighboring HOA land as if they were personal violations by Levy, despite decades of prior permit history and the City's written objections.
The facts the Commission tried to collapse.
A state agency imposed more than $2.5 million in potential penalties before any neutral court reviewed the disputed facts.
More than $1 million of the penalty was tied to the Mountain View Drive gate, which sits on neighboring HOA property, not on John Levy's parcel.
Pages of staff report, delivered days before the hearing. A continuance was denied. That record can limit what evidence a court later sees.
To respond under extreme pressure, then a hearing days after that. The window was set by the agency seeking the penalty.
Per day, per violation. The daily penalty threat was raised before the underlying disputes were resolved.
No CCC enforcement staff visited the property before enforcement actions. The agency imposed more than $2.5 million in potential penalties anyway.
Seven facts that are difficult to believe.
As part of our upcoming cease and desist order against Mr. Levy, we will require that Mr. Levy finally open the unpermitted permanently locked gate.
The remedy was described nearly five months before the October 9, 2025 hearing, before Levy's rebuttal, before the City's written positions, and before any vote.
The CCC controlled the process and benefited from the outcome.
This case exposes the structural problem with Coastal Commission enforcement. The Commission was not simply asking a court to resolve disputed facts. It acted as enforcement staff, media strategist, adjudicator, penalty authority, and lien holder. The agency did not merely decide the penalty. It also became the entity positioned to enforce the financial pressure it created.
That matters because more than $2.5 million in penalties were imposed before a neutral court reviewed the disputed ownership, easement, permit, and access issues. The Commission built the record, controlled the timeline, denied more time, held the hearing, imposed the penalty, and then left the property owner to fight uphill in court after the damage was already done.
The CCC declares that violations exist.
The CCC controls the enforcement timeline.
The CCC builds the administrative record.
The CCC denies more time when the record becomes overwhelming.
The CCC imposes massive penalties.
The CCC then points to its own record as the basis for defending the penalty in court.
That is the self-fulfilling enforcement machine, and that is the due process problem.
John Levy was not given a neutral courtroom first. He was given an agency process controlled by the same agency seeking the penalty.
The penalty threat came before the facts were resolved.
On May 9, 2025, five months before the October 9, 2025 hearing, Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, wrote to John C. Levy, Jr. and framed Levy as refusing to engage while also warning of massive daily penalties.
"However, for over six months now, you have refused to engage in settlement talks with us."
Source: Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, to John C. Levy, Jr., May 9, 2025"What has been clear is that you have continually refused to engage in settlement talks with us."
Source: Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, to John C. Levy, Jr., May 9, 2025"The Commission's administrative penalties may be assessed at a daily rate of up to $11,250 per day, per violation."
Source: Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, to John C. Levy, Jr., May 9, 2025The May 9 letter did two things before the hearing. It framed Levy as obstructionist. It put massive daily penalties on the table. The enforcement posture was penalty-forward before the underlying access disputes were resolved.
The CCC controls the money and uses it as leverage.
The CCC is not just making allegations. It controls the administrative enforcement process and threatens massive daily penalties. In the May 9, 2025 letter, before the October 9, 2025 hearing, CCC enforcement counsel Rob Moddelmog warned Levy of daily penalties while continuing to push confidential settlement talks.
"The Commission's administrative penalties may be assessed at a daily rate of up to $11,250 per day, per violation."
Source: Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, to John C. Levy, Jr., May 9, 2025This is not neutral enforcement. The CCC built the accusation, pressed the settlement posture, controlled the penalty threat, and then used the size of the potential financial exposure to force leverage. The fines are not just punishment after a neutral process. They are pressure inside the process itself.
The agency was both referee and beneficiary.
The Coastal Commission did not first go to court and prove its case before a neutral judge. It used its own administrative process.
The same agency investigated the allegations, built the record, controlled the timeline, denied more time, presented the case, imposed the penalties, and then left John Levy to challenge the result after the damage was done.
That is not neutral enforcement. It is an agency-controlled penalty system where the Commission's own process becomes the foundation for the Commission's own punishment.
The result was predictable: more than $2.5 million in penalties, including more than $1 million tied to a gate on property Levy does not own.
This property went through government review. It was approved, inspected, and closed as compliant.
This was not an unreviewed property.
John Levy did not build in secret. The property went through government review. The City of Carlsbad approved the permit, inspected the work, and closed the matter as compliant. The Coastal Commission was also part of the coastal permitting framework.
Years later, the CCC revived old disputed issues and treated them as active, penalty-bearing violations. Enforcement should begin with the full permit history, not with a simplified public narrative.
On Beach HOA landThe Mountain View Drive gate, on Beach HOA land. Source: site photograph.More than $1 million for a gate on land Levy does not own.
The Mountain View Drive gate is not the lagoon trail. It sits on neighboring HOA land. That fact should have mattered before the Commission imposed more than $1 million in penalties tied to that gate.
Instead, the CCC folded the gate into a broader public access narrative and treated it as if John Levy personally controlled every legal, ownership, and access question attached to it.
Both gates were known, reviewed, and approved years before the CCC turned them into an enforcement weapon.
The CCC's current narrative treats the gates as if John Levy secretly installed illegal barriers to block public access. That is not the record. These were not secret, rogue, or hidden improvements. They were part of a long permitting history, reviewed and approved through the City and the Coastal Commission process.
The Mountain View Drive gate was part of the permitting history in the late 1990s. It was approved around 1998 through Coastal Commission review, then handled through the City permitting process around 1999. It was not on Levy's residential parcel. It was tied to neighboring Beach HOA property and a vehicle access easement. The lagoon-side trail gate is a separate issue. That traces back to the 1997 City CDP and a later offer to dedicate a trail. The City never accepted the offer, never opened the trail, never operated it, and never maintained it as a public trail. The CCC should not blur the lagoon-side gate into the same public-access narrative as the Mountain View Drive gate.
The CCC cannot approve or tolerate these conditions for decades, then later rewrite the same history into a multimillion-dollar enforcement theory against one homeowner.
The Beach HOA authorized the gate in 1998.
The Mountain View Drive gate was not "Levy's gate" on Levy's parcel. In 1998 The Beach Homeowners Association consented to replacing an existing gate at the entry to Lot 3 off Mountain View Drive, and kept access rights for itself and its designees.
"The BHA hereby consents to your replacing the present gate at the entry to Lot 3 off Mountain View Drive with an electronically operated steel gate, subject to the following conditions."
Source: The Beach Homeowners Association, letter to John C. Levy, Jr., May 26, 1998"The BHA, its designees and others legally entitled thereto shall have access at all times to Lot 3 through the gate."
Source: The Beach Homeowners Association, letter to John C. Levy, Jr., May 26, 1998The gate ran through Beach HOA property rights and HOA access conditions from the start. It was not on Levy's residential parcel, and it is a separate issue from the lagoon trail. The CCC blurred the two. The record does not.
The CCC knew Levy disputed legal authority over the HOA gate land.
On July 21, 2025, before the October 9, 2025 hearing, Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, answered Levy's argument that he did not own the gate land and could not open it to the public.
"You argue that you 'do not possess any legal authority to open to the public, modify, a gate on property that is not mine.'"
Source: Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, to John C. Levy, Jr., July 21, 2025"Not only do you have authorization from the Beach HOA to open your gate to the public, but the Beach HOA has affirmatively required that you do so."
Source: Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, to John C. Levy, Jr., July 21, 2025The ownership dispute was in writing, and the CCC knew it. Its own answer depended on HOA land, HOA consent, and HOA access conditions. The same agency would soon be quietly working that very HOA against Levy.
The HOA had its own recorded access agreements.
A 2015 recorded Access Agreement shows The Beach HOA routinely entered access agreements over its property, with its own easements and gate approvals, separate from Levy.
"The Beach HOA, on behalf of itself and its successors-in-interest, agrees to and approves installation of a gate of not more than five feet in width."
Source: The Beach HOA and Ocean Street 8 Owners, LLC, recorded Access Agreement, recorded December 30, 2015The HOA was a property owner with its own access rights, not a bystander. That is why what came next matters: the CCC was penalizing Levy over a gate on this HOA's land while, at the same time, feeding that same HOA documents and case strategy. The coordination is detailed below.
No legal public accessThe lagoon-side area. The City never accepted, opened, or maintained a public trail here. Source: site photograph.The lagoon trail was never accepted, opened, or maintained by the City.
The Commission's narrative depends on treating the lagoon-side trail as if it were an active public access route that John Levy blocked. That is not what the City's own record says.
The City stated that the trail easement was never accepted, that the public could not legally access it, and that the trail requirement was not effective because the Lagoon Public Access Trail had not been accepted by the City. An unaccepted offer is not the same thing as an open public trail. The City did not accept it, open it, operate it, or maintain it. Yet the Commission continued to frame the case as if Levy was blocking existing public coastal access.
City record versus Commission narrative.
"The IOD remains as an unaccepted offer."
Source: City of Carlsbad Council Memorandum, August 5, 2025"The public cannot legally access it."
Source: City of Carlsbad Council Memorandum, August 5, 2025"City staff do not believe this requirement is effective since the Lagoon Public Access Trail has not yet been accepted by the city."
Source: City of Carlsbad Council Memorandum, August 5, 2025"You have continually refused to open your unpermitted locked gates within CDP-required public access easements."
Source: Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, to John C. Levy, Jr., May 9, 2025The City said the Lagoon Public Access Trail had not been accepted, the public could not legally access it, and the requirement was not effective. The Commission kept treating the lagoon trail as if an active public access easement already existed and Levy was simply refusing to open it. The issue was not a public trail being blocked. It was whether a never-accepted trail offer had ever become public access in the first place.
Two separate questions, one collapsed narrative.
Two separate access issues, one misleading enforcement story. The annotated record shows what the Coastal Commission's public narrative collapses into a single accusation. The land outlined in green is Beach HOA property. The route across it is a vehicular access easement to Levyland, not a public coastal trail owned or controlled by John Levy.
The Mountain View Drive gate sits on Beach HOA land. The lagoon trail offer was left unaccepted by the City. Public coastal access already exists at Ocean Street. So the claim that Levy simply "blocked public access" strips away the facts that decide the case: who owns the land, who controls the gate, what easements exist, whether the route is vehicular or pedestrian, whether the City ever accepted the lagoon trail, whether the City ever opened or maintained it, and whether Levy had legal authority over land he does not own.
This was not one clean public-access violation. It was a set of separate property, easement, gate-control, municipal-acceptance, and trail-operation issues that the Commission blended into a much simpler story. That story is wrong.
Annotated aerial showing Beach HOA land in green, the vehicular easement to Levyland, the separate lagoon gate and trail area, and existing Ocean Street public coastal access. Source: City of Carlsbad records and CDP 97-59 materials.
The green area is not Levy's land. It is Beach HOA property.
The access route is a vehicular easement to Levyland, not a public trail.
Treating a gate on HOA land as proof that Levy personally blocked public coastal access is not just oversimplified. It is factually wrong.
We have appreciated your ongoing cooperation with us as we work to prepare a formal cease and desist order and administrative penalties against John C. Levy, Jr.
The Commission thanked the HOA that owns the gate land for its cooperation, in the same breath as preparing penalties against Levy over access tied to that gate.
The CCC fed documents and case strategy to the HOA tied to the gate land.
The Beach HOA was the homeowners association connected to the Mountain View Drive gate land. More than $1 million of the CCC penalty theory was tied to access related to a gate on that neighboring HOA property, not Levy's residential parcel. While the case against Levy was active and before the October 9, 2025 hearing, the Commission was running a sustained, sensitive channel with that HOA.
The CCC thanked the HOA for cooperation while penalizing Levy over the gate issue.
The CCC was communicating with the HOA tied to the Mountain View Drive gate while building a penalty theory against Levy connected to access related to that same gate.
"Instead, we have appreciated your ongoing cooperation with us as we work to prepare a formal cease and desist order and administrative penalties against John C. Levy, Jr."
Source: Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, to The Beach HOA, July 31, 2025"We are aware that Mr. Levy has solicited you for financial and legal support, but we appreciate that you have chosen not to assist his ongoing Coastal Act violations."
Source: Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, to The Beach HOA, July 31, 2025The gate was not on Levy's parcel. The HOA channel was active before the October 9, 2025 hearing, while the Commission was still preparing its orders and penalties.
The CCC uploaded "a lot of documents" to The Beach HOA's Google Drive.
In June and July 2025, months before the October 9, 2025 hearing, Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, communicated directly with Tish Robinson, President of The Beach HOA. The record shows he discussed the matter with the HOA, sent documents, requested Google Drive access, uploaded documents, provided trail-network links, answered native plant questions through a CCC ecologist, and scheduled follow-up meetings.
"Here is a Google Drive link to share documents. Thank you for making such a kind offer to share your treasure trove of documents with us."
Source: Tish Robinson, President of The Beach HOA, to Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, June 2, 2025"Thank you again for all the documents you sent to us already, especially the 2023 agreement between John Levy and Scott Chadwick, City Manager for the City of Carlsbad. It was a surprise!"
Source: Tish Robinson, President of The Beach HOA, to Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, June 2, 2025"I just uploaded a lot of documents to the google drive."
Source: Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, to Tish Robinson, President of The Beach HOA, June 3, 2025"I have updates regarding this matter, are there any good times for you to talk next week?"
Source: Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, to Tish Robinson, President of The Beach HOA, July 10, 2025- Property Documents
- Deeds
- Recorded maps
- The Beach HOA
- Conservation easement files
- CCC Appeal of Levy CDP 97-59
- Carlsbad Levy CDP 97-59
- Native Sun 6-83-051
- Levy lagoon public access easement
- re Levy driveway easements
- Maps
- City of Carlsbad maps
- Carlsbad Trails Master Plan
- LCP
- Buena Vista Lagoon Draft Appeal Permit
- Coastal Records Project photos
- vehicle gate 5.1.18
- google street view mt view gate
- 2017 & 2021 Levy Site Visits
- 2018 site visit photos
- pickleball 11.4.24
- Aerials
Google Drive screenshots showing the shared "Levy Files" folder structure, including photos, property documents, LCP materials, aerials, Carlsbad Trails Master Plan files, maps, and permit history. Source: Public Records Act production / shared Google Drive screenshots.
The volume matters. The CCC was not merely responding to a narrow records request. CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel Rob Moddelmog uploaded a broad document bank to the HOA connected to the Mountain View Drive gate land while the enforcement matter was active and before the October 9, 2025 hearing. The agency was penalizing Levy over access tied to the gate while simultaneously feeding documents, case background, trail materials, permit records, maps, easements, and site-visit photos to the HOA connected to that gate land.
The HOA received records, then agreed to limit who saw them.
Johanna Deleissegues, counsel for The Beach HOA, requested records regarding communications between John Levy and the Coastal Commission concerning the HOA. The thread shows records had already been released to HOA counsel on June 19, 2025, and that additional correspondence with Levy was released on July 22, 2025.
"You received all records concerning the HOA on June 19."
Source: Robin Mayer, CCC Senior Attorney, to Johanna Deleissegues, counsel for The Beach HOA, July 18, 2025"To help protect the negotiations with Mr. Levy that we hope will lead to a consent order, we would appreciate if you did not share what we released beyond you, Ms. Deleissgues, or her firm."
Source: Robin Mayer, CCC Senior Attorney, to Tish Robinson, President of The Beach HOA, July 22, 2025"I will not share them beyond Johanna and the 2 HOA board present on the call with Rob Moddelmog."
Source: Tish Robinson, President of The Beach HOA, to Robin Mayer, CCC Senior Attorney, July 22, 2025"We are glad the HOA is in the mix of this complex matter."
Source: Robin Mayer, CCC Senior Attorney, to Tish Robinson, President of The Beach HOA, July 22, 2025The CCC was not simply responding to the public. It was actively managing a sensitive information channel with the HOA tied to the gate land, before the October 9, 2025 hearing.
Private when useful. Public when strategic.
The same channel that asked the HOA president to keep certain released materials limited also encouraged the HOA to circulate other Commission letters to its members. Both happened before the October 9, 2025 hearing.
"We would appreciate if you did not share what we released beyond you, Ms. Deleissgues, or her firm."
Source: Robin Mayer, CCC Senior Attorney, to Tish Robinson, President of The Beach HOA, July 22, 2025"Please do feel free to share that letter and this letter with your members."
Source: Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, to The Beach HOA, July 31, 2025The City disputed the theory. The CCC warned it not to break ranks.
The City of Carlsbad was the local permitting authority under its certified Local Coastal Program. It approved the permit, inspected the work, closed the matter as compliant, and later disputed core parts of the CCC's enforcement theory in writing before the October 9, 2025 hearing. Jeff Murphy, City of Carlsbad Community Development Director, sent the City's August 2025 written positions.
The City said the staff report misrepresented its position.
"The city believes the staff report misrepresents the city's position."
Source: City of Carlsbad statement quoted in San Diego Union-Tribune article reproduced in CCC internal news briefing packet, October 3, 2025This was not a minor disagreement. The City's position went directly to the foundation of the CCC's enforcement theory. The Commission proceeded toward the October 9, 2025 hearing anyway.
The CCC warned the City not to break from its theory.
On May 23, 2025, Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, wrote to Eric Lardy at the City of Carlsbad, before the City issued its August 2025 written positions.
"This is unfortunate, since this would be clearly contrary to the facts and the CDP."
Source: Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, to Eric Lardy, City of Carlsbad, May 23, 2025"We sincerely hope that the City will not now concede, since that would create a variety of difficulties."
Source: Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, to Eric Lardy, City of Carlsbad, May 23, 2025Before the City issued its August 2025 written positions, the CCC warned the City not to concede points that would undercut the Commission's theory. The City later disputed core parts of the CCC's case in writing anyway. The CCC was not simply informing the City of its position. It was warning the City not to break ranks.
The record that controlled the court fight was built under pressure.
A 1,600-page staff report arrived days before the October 9, 2025 hearing. Levy requested a continuance. The continuance was denied. The administrative record created in that compressed window became the evidentiary foundation for later court review.
The agency controlled the pressure. Then the agency benefited from the record created under that pressure. It created the pressure, denied more time, imposed the penalties, and then left the property owner fighting uphill in court on the record the agency forced him to build.
The remedy was forecast before the hearing.
On May 23, 2025, Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, wrote to the City of Carlsbad and described what the CCC's "upcoming" cease and desist order would require.
"Please note that as part of our upcoming cease and desist order against Mr. Levy, we will require that Mr. Levy finally open the unpermitted permanently locked gate to allow for public pedestrian access."
Source: Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, to Eric Lardy, City of Carlsbad, May 23, 2025This was months before the October 9, 2025 hearing. It was before Levy's July 9, 2025 rebuttal, before the City's August 1 and August 5, 2025 written positions, and before the Commission voted on the cease and desist order, restoration order, and penalties. The remedy was described before the record was complete. That is enforcement before facts.
The Commission said Levy refused to engage.
Levy did not refuse to speak. He objected to unrecorded, confidential process. The Commission declined structured, recorded engagement, then characterized that objection as a refusal to cooperate.
"However, for over six months now, you have refused to engage in settlement talks with us."
Source: Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, to John C. Levy, Jr., May 9, 2025"You stated that you would only talk with us if you could record our conversation."
Source: Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, to John C. Levy, Jr., May 9, 2025"Your proposed recording of any conversation we had would not allow confidential settlement discussions to take place."
Source: Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, to John C. Levy, Jr., May 9, 2025"I have repeatedly asked for structured, transparent, and on-the-record meetings. You have insisted on confidential, unrecorded conversations."
Source: John C. Levy, Jr. Rebuttal Letter, July 9, 2025A request for a transparent, recorded process was reframed as a refusal to engage. That reframe became a central element of the enforcement narrative.
Mr. Levy has illegally blocked beach access in Carlsbad for years using a locked gate near the mouth of Buena Vista Lagoon.
The Commission wrote the public verdict and handed it to a reporter for attribution one week before the October 9, 2025 hearing, before any vote.
The public narrative was being built before the hearing.
The Commission did not merely enforce. Public Records Act materials show it shared case background into an advocacy channel and engaged reporters while the case was still active and before the October 9, 2025 hearing.
The Notice of Intent was shared into the advocacy channel before the hearing.
Andrew Meyer, Director of Conservation at San Diego Bird Alliance, emailed Natalie Shapiro, Executive Director of Buena Vista Audubon Society, and Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, on May 28, 2025. The Notice of Intent was the Commission's October 2, 2024 formal notice to commence cease and desist, restoration, and penalty proceedings.
"Robert Moddelmog is a Coastal Commission Enforcement Officer who I've talked to a few times about Mission Bay issues, and he gave me some history to the Levyland parcel in a discussion yesterday. The NOI is attached, which he shared with me."
Source: Andrew Meyer, Director of Conservation at San Diego Bird Alliance, to Natalie Shapiro, Executive Director of Buena Vista Audubon Society, and Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, May 28, 2025The chain ran from CCC enforcement counsel, to the San Diego Bird Alliance conservation director, to the Buena Vista Audubon executive director, with a Surfrider representative referenced as an information source. This was happening months before the Commission voted, while the case was still active.
The same advocacy network later entered the hearing record.
Months after the May 28, 2025 email, Buena Vista Audubon Society and Surfrider Foundation submitted public comments supporting the Commission's enforcement position before the October 9, 2025 hearing.
"The gate needs to be opened to the public immediately."
Source: Buena Vista Audubon Society / Natalie Shapiro, public comment submitted before the October 9, 2025 CCC hearing, October 6, 2025"Surfrider strongly supports all four of the Enforcement Program's proposed enforcement orders, and urges you to vote in favor."
Source: Surfrider Foundation, public comment submitted before the October 9, 2025 CCC hearing, October 3, 2025Outside groups are free to comment. The point is that CCC enforcement shared case history and the Notice of Intent into an advocacy channel months earlier, and some of those same voices later appeared in the record supporting the Commission's theory. A public narrative was taking shape before adjudication.
The CCC initiated the media loop before the hearing.
Joshua Smith, CCC communications staff, engaged reporters and directed them toward an advocacy contact before the October 9, 2025 hearing. Phil Diehl was a San Diego Union-Tribune reporter. Leo Place was a Coast News reporter. Mitch Silverstein was a Surfrider Foundation representative.
"Do you have time this week to chat about the public access case involving John Levy in Carlsbad? I believe this issue could come before the Coastal Commission in October."
Source: Joshua Smith, CCC communications staff, to Phil Diehl, San Diego Union-Tribune reporter, September 11, 2025"Our enforcement staff is very interested in talking with you about this case."
Source: Joshua Smith, CCC communications staff, to Phil Diehl, San Diego Union-Tribune reporter, September 16, 2025"I set up the call to talk to the U-T reporter for Wednesday, Sept. 24."
Source: Joshua Smith, CCC communications staff, internal email to Lisa Haage and Aaron McLendon, CCC staff, September 16, 2025"I would suggest reaching out to Mitch Silverstein at Surfrider. He spoke today on this at public comment."
Source: Joshua Smith, CCC communications staff, to Phil Diehl, San Diego Union-Tribune reporter, June 11, 2025Outreach, enforcement access, internal call scheduling, and referral to an outside advocacy voice, all before the hearing. This was not passive media response. It was narrative management while the case was still active.
The public verdict was drafted before the hearing.
On October 2, 2025, one week before the October 9, 2025 hearing, Joshua Smith, CCC communications staff, supplied prewritten statements to San Diego Union-Tribune reporter Phil Diehl for attribution to Rob Moddelmog, the CCC enforcement counsel on the case, and corrected Moddelmog's title before publication.
"Mr. Levy has illegally blocked beach access in Carlsbad for years using a locked gate near the mouth of Buena Vista Lagoon."
Source: Joshua Smith, CCC communications staff, to Phil Diehl, San Diego Union-Tribune reporter, October 2, 2025, supplied for attribution to Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel"Hi, Phil, one last tweak: Rob's official title is enforcement counsel, not enforcement analyst."
Source: Joshua Smith, CCC communications staff, to Phil Diehl, San Diego Union-Tribune reporter, October 2, 2025The statements were packaged for attribution to enforcement counsel before adjudication, and the CCC corrected attribution details before publication. The public story was being drafted before the facts were resolved.
The denial does not match the public records.
On July 21, 2025, Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, wrote to John C. Levy, Jr. and stated that enforcement staff did not speak with the journalist who wrote a story about the matter.
"Please note, though, that as a matter of fact, enforcement staff did not speak with the journalist that wrote a story about this matter."
Source: Rob Moddelmog, CCC Headquarters Enforcement Counsel, to John C. Levy, Jr., July 21, 2025The July 21 denial does not match the Public Records Act production. The records show press referrals, proactive outreach, internal scheduling, and prewritten attributed statements before the October 9, 2025 hearing. That is narrative management.
What the CCC said. What the record shows.
- ×John Levy blocked public access.
- ×The gates were Levy's responsibility.
- ×The trail was a public access route.
- ×The case was straightforward.
- ×The penalties were justified enforcement.
- /The Mountain View gate sits on Beach HOA land, not Levy's residential parcel.
- /The route across the green-highlighted HOA land is a vehicular easement to Levyland, not a public coastal trail owned or controlled by Levy.
- /The shared Google Drive screenshots show more than 30 visible folders, files, PDFs, images, maps, aerials, permit materials, site-visit materials, and easement records.
- /Rob Moddelmog uploaded a broad document bank to the HOA connected to the gate land before the October 9, 2025 hearing.
- /The lagoon trail is separate. The City never accepted, opened, improved, operated, or maintained it as an active public trail.
- /The City stated the public could not legally access the lagoon trail because the IOD remained an unaccepted offer.
- /The CCC kept framing the lagoon-side issue as if Levy was refusing to open an existing public access route.
- /Public coastal access already exists at Ocean Street.
- /The City disputed key parts of the CCC's theory in writing.
- /A 1,600-page staff report arrived days before the hearing.
- /More than $2.5 million in penalties were imposed before neutral court review.
- /The CCC collapsed separate property, easement, gate-control, municipal-acceptance, and trail-operation issues into one simplified narrative. That narrative is wrong.
Why this matters beyond LevyLand.
Agency overreach
A state agency enforced obligations the permitting authority said were not active, and imposed penalties anyway.
Process without a neutral first
The penalty came before any neutral court reviewed the disputed ownership, easement, permit, and access facts.
A record built under pressure
A 1,600-page record arrived days before the hearing, a continuance was denied, and that record can limit later court review.
Narrative and adjudication
Public communications and advocacy referrals ran while the case was still active and unresolved.
This is bigger than one property.
The Commission's story was simple: John Levy blocked public access. The record is not simple.
The Mountain View gate was on HOA land. The lagoon trail easement was never accepted, opened, improved, or maintained by the City. The City disputed key parts of the Commission's theory in writing. The hearing record was forced together under extreme time pressure. Media and advocacy coordination occurred while enforcement was still active. Then the Commission imposed more than $2.5 million in penalties anyway.
That is not fair enforcement.
That is government power without meaningful restraint.
The record is public. So are the questions it raises.
For background documents, the underlying correspondence, timelines, and public records related to the LevyLand case, the full file is available.
Request the record