Hello, fellow Coastsiders - My name is Charles Gardner and I’m a Candidate for the Cabrillo Unified School District in the election this November.

My primary focus is on the educational needs of our students. I live in Montara, and have twin eight year olds in Farallone View Elementary. I would like to see they have an opportunity to attend the new middle school we voted for in 1996. But just as important, I feel it vital to maintain and improve our curriculum, challenge our students with enrichment programs, and support our teachers and services. The quality of life we deserve here on the Coastside, as well as the legacy we can leave for our children, is my calling to service.

I ask that you take a minute to read my position statement, and please vote in the upcoming election.

Thanks to Barry and Coastsider for providing this forum. I’ll begin this conversation by sketching out the issues that I’ve been talking about; questions and comments are welcome.

First, we need a more active and independent school board. The board ought to be the voice of our diverse community in the school system, and not simply the defender of the status quo.

I’ll be one of five board members, and no doubt I’ll come out on the short end of the occasional 4-1 or 3-2 vote. So be it; if I can’t persuade a majority of my fellow board members of the virtues of my position, that’s the democratic process in action. But a voice will be heard that isn’t being heard now, offering fresh approaches to old problems.

I am a Captain at United Airlines, and have lived on the Coast since 1995. I have two children enrolled in the Cabrillo Unified School District. Over the past four years, I have been an active parent involved with local schools and kids. I have served the El Granada Elementary School PTA as both President and Parliamentarian.

My vision for CUSD schools is one that integrates them into the fabric of all segments of our community. First, I would work to restore public trust in the school board by inviting debate, and deliberating on all major issues in plain view of the public spotlight. Secondly, I would like to explore innovative mechanisms that would create new revenue streams from school facilities. Thirdly, I would attempt to work with private foundations, City and State governments in order to optimize assets that will promote and preserve our schools.

A couple dozen organizations have asked Bay Area TV news directors to allocate at least two hours per week during evening hours to cover the issues voters will decide on Nov. 2.

They’re looking for volunteers to monitor how the issues are actually covered. You can monitor as little as one newscast, or as many as you care to. The analysis will take place throughout October.

Last spring Grade the News analyzed how well local news media helped prepare us to cast informed ballots in the March 2 election. The results for the three largest stations located in the city of San Francisco, KRON Channel 4, KPIX Channel 5 and KGO Channel 7, indicated that none took their obligation to empower citizenship seriously. They spent a minute or less in two of the three weeks before Election Day reporting on candidate positions and the substance and likely effects of ballot measures, ignoring hundreds of important races and issues across the nine counties of the Bay Area.

The campaign scorecard and instructions are easy to download and use. Both are in PDF format. After you evaluate a newscast, send it in either by fax to Media Alliance, 415-546-6128, or preferably—fill in your data online at Survey Monkey.

This is a project of Grade the News, Media Alliance, Common Cause, local chapters of the League of Women Voters, the Alliance for Better Campaigns, and more than a score of other organizations. To volunteer and for more information, please email Or call (415) 546-6334 x300

T.J. Rodgers has just reaped his first crop on his vineyard in La Honda, but he still doesn’t have permission to build the winery he needs to produce what he promises will be “the best pinot noir on the planet”, according to the Mercury News.

His neighbors and the County are still struggling with the implications of his project. He didn’t win any friends by neglecting to get county approval before dynamiting the hills to create three enormous wine caves. And he wants to make five times more wine than the county allows.

The story has plenty of detail about Rodgers’ spectacular plans.

UPDATE: Check the “comments” link below the headline for more information from a La Honda resident about why this project is so unpopular among Rodgers’ neighbors.

If you read the front-page story in Wednesday’s Review, “Questions surface about park plan”, last Tuesday’s city council meeting was a firestorm of controversy. The article emphasized the discord at a meeting that was mostly positive and optimistic.

Here’s what the Review said, with emphasis added to their most evocative language:

At the City Council meeting Sept. 21, speaker after speaker peppered councilmembers with concerns largely focused on the council’s procedure for acquiring the land. Some said the deal seemed sudden and secret. They wanted assurance that increased traffic in the Cypress Cove neighborhood would be addressed if the land becomes a park.

Others had concerns about the land itself.

[...]

At the council meeting several residents commented that they were excited at the prospect of finally having a community park, offering to help the city to shape the project.

But they were also concerned and critical.

They said they felt blindsided by the city’s purchase and feared the effects of increased traffic and noise associated with creating a park at the end of Stone Pine Road, the main road through the neighborhood.

One person wanted to know how the city planned to address parking issues.

Overall, most were troubled that so much had transpired behind closed doors.

I reviewed the tape of the meeting to see if I had completely misread the mood of what I found to be a pretty positive hearing. I don’t hold grudges. But I will never forgive the Review for making it necessary for me to watch this damned city council meeting tape over and over.

There were nine speakers. Four of them (not “most") expressed (legitimate) concerns with the process.  Six of the speakers were from Cypress Cove and all said they were concerned about parking and traffic, but all save one seemed optimistic about the park and working with the city on the plan.  Suzanne Hyder, the president of the Cypress Cove Homeowners Association, said that 10% of residents came to a meeting about the park and that “there were many positive comments” at the meeting.

What struck me was the hopeful tone of the testimony. These people were clearly surprised by the decision and concerned about the traffic impact. They wanted to work with the city to address the issue. But it was clear they were looking forward to having a park next door and believed the city would act in good faith.

This question of tone seems like a quibble. But after watching the city council meeting, I could hardly believe that the Review was describing the same meeting that I had attended. It certainly gives the impression that the neighbors were angrier and more negative than they really were. What will be the effect of this story on Cypress Cove residents who are still undecided about the park?

Did the HMB city council violate the Ralph M. Brown open meetings act? Not as far as I have been able to determine. But the Review’s colorful front-page sidebar “City may have violated open meetings law” certainly makes it look that way:

Though Ferreira did not say so at the time, the recess resulted in a closed session - a private discussion between four council members, city staff and the city attorney regarding aspects of the recently concluded property negotiations. Councilwoman Toni Taylor was not in attendance that night.
Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, a set of provisions governing the way government meetings are conducted, council was required to explicitly notify the public that it intended to reconvene in closed session, said Jim Ewert, staff attorney for the California Newspaper Publishers Association.

No such notification was given.

Actually, it was.  City Attorney Adam Lindgren says that after the recess was called, more than one council member wanted to talk to him and he realized that this was not simply a consultation with a single member. He advised the mayor that the city council needed to inform the audience that it had to adjourn into closed session. 

According to City Manager Debra Ryan, “The mayor grabbed the gavel and announced a closed session.”

Says Lindgren, “I am positive that the mayor didn’t violate the Brown Act.”

Everyone who was at the meeting would have heard the announcement. This would not be clear to anyone viewing the videotape of the meeting, because the camera was turned off before the closed session was annnouced.

What happened next is murkier. According to the Review:

Whenever a council goes into closed session, it is required to identify the grounds for that private meeting, also something that was not done.

Satisfying the requirement would have been simple, Ewert said. Ferreira needed only to reference one of the closed-session items printed on the agenda.

According to Lisa Sitkin, attorney with Piper Rudnick, general counsel to the California First Amendment Coalition, the fact that there was a closed item on the agenda and that it was clear this was what the council was discussing in recess would make this a technical violation at best.  “Although it’s awkwardly set out, it could be considered a continuation of the closed session. Technically, a closed session is supposed to be on the agenda, but it’s not like they went into closed session for another matter that wasn’t on the agenda.” She says she wouldn’t advise a client to sue over the matter.

I called Jim Ewart of the California Newspaper Publishers Association three times in the last 24 hours to find out what facts he was given by the Review, but he hasn’t called me back.

Opponents to buying the Nurserymen’s Exchange property say that the city council hasn’t addressed the risk that it contains wetlands. In its front-page story Questions surface about park plan, the Half Moon Bay Review reports:

[City council member Marina Fraser] suggested that before the city move forward it conduct a biological analysis of potential on-site wetlands to ensure no problems down the road. Fraser referenced the Wavecrest Village project, which ground to a halt after state and federal agencies learned that a red-legged frog was discovered on the riparian habitat.

Marina told me that she didn’t have these doubts until she got her copy of the Phase II due diligence reports that the city council prepared in advance of their vote. I had to see this report.

I went down to city hall today and got my own copies of the reports.  Phase I is dated April 1, 2004, and Phase II came out August 27.  According to the “Wetland and Riparian Habitat Assessment Report” in Phase II, written by Albion Environmental:

...direct impacts to [the creek’s riparian area and irrigation pond] should be avoided, and the riparian area should be protected with a 50 foot buffer. The irrigation pond would not require a buffer. The shallow, man-made drainage ditches around agricultural fields lack a preponderance of hydrophytic vegetation and would not likely fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of either the CCA/LCP or the Corps.

According to the report, about 2 acres of the 22-acre property is covered with “riparian vegetation”.  The creek is the boundary of the property, so only one side of the 50-foot buffer would be on the property. And, let’s face it, a natural creekside is a wonderful thing to have in a park.

But there’s no substitute for a site visit. You should go out there yourself.  Except for the pond and creek area, the land is packed earth covered with tarpaulins and decomposed granite roads.  Except for the creekbank, there is no natural vegetation of the sort the covers the fabled Coastside Community Park, or the proposed site of Wavecrest Village.

When I asked Mike Ferreira whether this property could be developed as a park, he told me: “Take a look at what we’re doing on the Pilarcitos Creek Trail as an example of the kind of thing the Coastal Commission will permit in a riparian corridor.” So I did. Take a look at the picture on the right of what’s being done at the corner of the 92 and the 1. Now, think about the precedent this sets a little further upstream on the Nurserymen’s Exchange property.

So, I’m left wondering what additional “biological analysis of potential on-site wetlands” is needed.

NOTE: As always on Coastsider, you can click on these pictures to get a larger image.

I dropped by to see the construction of Moss Beach Park [photo album], and I was amazed by what I saw. My first impression was that there was no place to park. Then I got a good look at an amazing scene.

There were close to 50 volunteers on the site, ranging from the unskilled to professional contractors. What was amazing to me was that everyone was working hard. No one was standing around looking for something to do. This thing is very well organized.

Take a look at these scenes and realize just how far the work has come in just 24 hours work on two of the coldest and dampest days we’ve seen in a long time.

I’ll be posting more pictures as work progresses.  In the meantime, get out there and see it for yourself. Or lend a hand.

I’ve run a three stories about the Half Moon Bay City Council’s purchase of land between Oak Avenue and Pilarcitos Creek to build a park that would complement the trail they’re now building and to add some open space to a neighborhood that really needs it. The Review has not simply ignored the story, they buried it.

Not only is this a feel-good story, but the purchase was passed unanimously by a city council that was severely divided by the Nurserymen’s Exchange purchase earlier in the evening. Everyone agreed that this was a great plan for a neighborhood that desperately needs a park.

The Review reported this by dropping it in “In other matters”, a tedious compendium of city council agenda items on the next-to-the-last page of Section A. Here’s what they wrote:

Adopted a resolution authorizing the city manager to enter into a purchase agreement and record title for the purchase of 056-141-950; 056-141-960; 056-141-970.

That’s it: no description of the parcels or their location, or any indication the city is building a new park. Not even a quote from Marina Fraser, who testified at the meeting that this was a priority ever since she was on the Parks and Recreation Commission and how it will provide a safe place for the kids of the neighborhood, many of whom are now playing in the street.

Perhaps Oak Avenue doesn’t matter to the Review.