Comments by Leonard Woren

HMB fire board responds to union critics

(In two parts due to length)

The inflammatory terminology that Ed Hawkins persists in using is really irritating, in addition to being just plain wrong (all italicized text is quotations from Mr. Hawkins):
- “surrender the fire department to state control”
- “give up their responsiblity [sic] for running a fire department and hand over that responsibilty [sic] to the State of California”
- “The fire board is hell-bent to sell out the fire department and stick it to their employees.”
- “a sellout to CDF”
- “Shutting down a 117 year old fire department”

What’s clear is that Ed Hawkins is running a campaign based on emotion instead of facts/logic.  He hopes to appeal to the emotions of the voters, when he knows that he doesn’t have facts on his side.

“It is our belief, and the belief of some of the board members, that there should be broad based public involvement in a decision of that magnitude.  If the taxpayers vote for a state fire department then the deal will be final.”

All local agencies on the Coastside contract for outside legal counsel.  Is that a “selling out” or a “shutting down” of the agency?  No, it’s simply the most cost-effective method of getting good service.  Contracting with CDF is no different.  GSD, HMB, and MWSD save money by contracting with SAM for services.  (More on this below, in part 2.)

Few voters are interested in following the machinations of special districts.  That’s why we elect governing boards.  In a well-planned smear campaign, the whole HMBFPD board was replaced in the elections of 2003 and 2005, and yet the union still isn’t happy.

Putting the question to the voters might be reasonable if the voters could make the decision based on complete information.  But this is a complex situation and few voters can spend the time to get complete information on this, which gives the advantage to an appeal to emotion.  Other than firefighters and their families and close friends, how many citizens have spoken at meetings or otherwise made their feelings known?  I believe most of the ones who aren’t family and friends have supported contracting out to CDF.  A reasonable theory is that the voters elected a new fire board to clean up the mess, and they want that board to do so, not come back and ask the voters what to do.

(continued)

HMB fire board responds to union critics

Here’s another interesting clash:  The firefighters have taken the position “we don’t want it contracted out but if it’s going to be contracted out, it has to be with the City of San Mateo Fire Department and not with CDF”.  Ed Hawkins then tosses an opinion as if it were fact—that CDF would fight termination of the contract.  It must be noted that SMFD will only do the contract if they get an 8-10 year contract term.  CDF will do it on a one year renewable contract.

So here’s what I want to know:  How could CDF possibly force HMBFPD or CFPD to renew a contract?  Now, I didn’t go to law school, but anyone walking down the street knows that if either party to a contract doesn’t want to do it, a contract can’t exist.  If the local boards don’t want to continue part the expiration date of the contract, the agreement ends.

So I ask Ed Hawkins to explain how CDF could possibly force/coerce/whatever an extension of the contract if the local boards change their minds and decide not to renew?

One more thing.  Let’s not forget the other elephant in the living room mentioned in Bonano’s memo:  it’s not exclusively management which is a problem.  The firefighters aren’t willing to deal with this at all.

Ed Hawkins also says that it’s impossible to start up a new in-house operation after contracting it out.  Could someone please tell that to Point Montara’s Director Gary Riddell?  That’s exactly what he wants to do.

Coastsider endorses Pam Fisher for CUSD board

This is not an attempt to take sides in this debate, but I just have to ask this question:  why is it ok for people who live near the beach to object to beachgoers parking on “their” streets, but it’s not ok for people living near an athletic field to object to people parking on “their” street?

To an outsider (I’m only vaguely aware of the Highland neighborhood), it’s pretty amusing to watch this “we don’t want the Ailanto traffic on our streets” position intersect with “we don’t want Pam Fisher because she objects to non-residents parking on our streets.” For anyone who can take a couple of steps back, this could be entertaining.

I suppose that I’m going to have to drive over there and try to understand where the fields are relative to the houses.  Of course, I may get attacked by two groups—those who don’t want me driving on “their” street and those who don’t want me parking on “their” street.  Why don’t they just buy the streets from the city and make it a gated community?  (Alert:  that’s sarcasm, and should not be interpreted as a suggestion or as taking sides.)

I am curious as to how many of the “no Ailanto traffic” people are also against Pam Fisher’s “no school parking” position?  Is anyone willing to answer this question?  I truly do not know the answer.  The reason I ask is that it would seem inconsistent to me to object to the Ailanto traffic but attack someone who’s against event parking, or vice versa.

Side note:  having once lived in a place close to a commercial area with insufficient parking such that customers parked in the residential area, I still have to say that I’m totally against permit parking.  If someone doesn’t want visitors parking on their street, they shouldn’t park on the street either.  That’s why houses are required to have garages—you park on your own property.  In the above-referenced city, no overnight street parking at all was allowed, and I don’t think residents could get permits to do so.  Daytime parking on most streets had a 2 hour limit.

Oh.  The original article here is about CUSD candidates.  It’s one thing to say that you can’t move next to a school and complain about the school activities.  I totally agree.  It’s not quite the same to say that when there is a major expansion of those activities you have to just accept whatever they want to do.

Harbor Village to open in May

Julia called me to ask who she could talk to who wasn’t supportive of the project.  She wasn’t interested in what I had to say because of the GSD involvement.  I gave her a number of names and phone numbers of people against the project.

A friend of mine is referring to it as “The Disneyland Hotel.”

Julian McCurrach is quoted “I haven’t heard of anybody who’s against it.” He knows damn well that I’ve always been against it.  What he really means is that he knows of no Princeton business owner who’s against it.

Photo: Surfing at Kelp Cove

I don’t think that we’re in agreement on very much at all, simply that the bluff is eroding.  That’s like agreeing that the sun will come up in the morning.

The main issue is that armoring causes loss of the beach, and natural erosion doesn’t.  Nothing else should matter—it’s not reasonable for property owners to steal the beach from the public at large just because they have a structure (house, hotel, restaurant, etc) in a stupid location which prior to purchase anyone with a clue would have known was not a viable location for the long term.

The argument about the danger of things falling onto the beach as the bluff erodes is a straw man argument—don’t build that stuff too close to the ocean and it won’t fall as natural processes proceed.  For the junk that’s already built too close, remove it before erosion causes it to fall.  Simple.

Harbor District’s future is under review

Carl, any answer I give would be little more than idle speculation.  Some of us have discussed the “why”, but we really don’t know.  The idea in your first paragraph never came up in our discussions.  The idea in your second paragraph is certainly a possibility.  But we do hope that the real reason is a combination of taking into account the widespread strong community feeling against houses there and that they finally understood the historic significance of the Burnham Plan which calls for a 2000’ open space buffer between the town and the ocean.

The Strip is all that’s left of that 2000’ open space buffer after the highway construction and beach erosion.  The erosion rate was greatly increased due to the breakwater construction in 1959.  Here’s a thought:  since the harbor caused the loss of much of the buffer strip, they owe it to the community to keep the remaining few hundred feet as open space.

Would the Supervisors actively try to sabotage the Harbor District?  I seriously doubt it.  Rather, they probably just had no sympathy for the district, and other concerns were a higher priority.  They made the right decision; let’s support it.

Harbor District’s future is under review

“Zero sphere of influence”, while it’s a source of major irritation to the Harbor District, was described by LAFCo staff as “a term of art” and therefore not easy to change.  (They are trying to come up with an alternative.) What it means is that the District could be dissolved because another agency (in this case the County) could take over all the functions.  I attended the LAFCo meeting, and heard nothing that would imply that dissolution is on anyone’s agenda.  LAFCo will not initiate dissolution proceedings.  Any affected government agency in the County (at a minimum, that’s 20 cities and 25 special districts) could submit an application to dissolve the Harbor District.  Such an application would have to include a “plan for service” showing how the current services would be provided and funded after dissolution.  Also, citizens could petition for dissolution.

The majority of what’s written in the Daily Journal article is correct, but there’s also a lot that’s not.  Take it with a big grain of salt.  (They didn’t even get correct what LAFCo stands for.)

Supervisors vote to allow no more housing on Burnham Strip

Today I spoke with a County Supervisor regarding the two existing applications to build houses on the Burnham Strip and was told that the County always grandfathers existing applications and would not make an exception in this case.  So there is still great risk of having two more houses on the Burnham Strip.

The Burnham Strip Committee is part of Midcoast Park Lands, a 501(c)(3) organization which is also a land trust.  When the Committee raises enough money to acquire property, it will be MPL which actually buys and takes ownership of the property.

MPL has multiple accounts.  One of them is for Quarry Park operations.  Another is the Burnham Strip Fund.  The use of those accounts should be self-explanatory.

I don’t understand the “oversight” question.  MPL has a board of directors, as do most corporations.  Who provides oversight to any corporation?  (Duh, the board!) I take the question to be a sneaky way to try to undermine MPL or the Burnham Strip acquisition project.  Who provides oversight of CCF?  Of CCWD?  Of MCTV?  Of Congress?

People on committees come and go.  Why is it so important to you to know whether the list is complete and why it may not be complete?

Video: CUSD board candidates forum at MCC

Every two years we are reminded that Mark Twain was right.

Supervisors vote to allow no more housing on Burnham Strip

One SAMCAR (San Mateo County Association of Realtors) rep actually asked the supervisors to change the zoning for the Burnham Strip to be “consistent” with other residential areas and allow 28’ houses, and to increase the allowed size over what the current zoning allows.  To me, that says everything you need to know about how SAMCAR is a narrow, out-of-touch, special interest group.  In fact, it’s the very definition of special interest group.

Once we acquire the Strip as a public park, I think the trash level will go down substantially.  In the mean time, I hope the trash cans that the Granada Sanitary District arranged are helping.

Photo: Surfing at Kelp Cove

Ok, I think we can all agree that the ocean is having an impact on the bluffs.  How does that justify allowing armoring, which makes things worse for everyone except one individual property owner?  This was a problem long before any current property owners were here.  (Otherwise known as a pre-existing condition.) What gives them the right to be stupid and/or selfish and/or arrogant and/or greedy and protect their one property to the detriment of the general public and the environment?

Opinion: County Supervisors push their buildout vision on Coastside residents

”The County did NO Carrying Capacity Analysis --- THAT would show that the Mid-Coast is nearly built out now”

Actually, an unbiased, objective carrying capacity analysis would probably show that the Midcoast is already overbuilt.

A note to the readers on objectivity and Coastsider

I would not have noticed the diatribe on the Review’s web site, but someone emailed it to me.  It was quite exhausting to read, which I suspect was part of the author’s objective.  Why did I read it?  Morbid curiousity, kind of like looking at a train wreck.

Without deconstructing the whole missive (what would be the point?), I just have to say that claiming that Coastsider.com is less objective or more biased than the Review is just laughable.

I see that Coastsider.com’s editor and publisher admitted nearly 2 years ago that “Coastsider is not entirely objective.” I’m still waiting for the Review’s publisher to admit that about the Review.

Those who attack Coastsider.com and love the Review feel that way specifically because the Review is totally oriented towards their pave-the-coast overdevelopment philosophy.

Opinion: County Supervisors push their buildout vision on Coastside residents

When the original LCP was approved by the CCC in 1980, it was with a certain “estimated” buildout population.  My educated guess is that the CCC would not have approved it with a substantially higher buildout population number.  We are already at 2/3 or so of that number, but with only half of the residential parcels built out.  This means that the final buildout population under the current land use scheme will be at least 50% higher than originally envisioned and approved by the Coastal Commission.

Therefore, what should be done via this LCP update is to change the land use plan to reduce the buildout population, instead of just upwardly revising the estimated number to match the current, flawed land use plan.

Personally, I think this current proposal is like union contract negotiations:  you ask for something totally outrageous, and compromise somewhere in the middle to get what you really wanted.  The CCC likes such compromises, but the coastside environment just can’t stand it—we need to improve things, not make them worse slower.

Opinion: County Supervisors push their buildout vision on Coastside residents

Good article and good analysis.

LCPs are supposed to be updated every 5 years to adjust them to account for experience, new knowledge, and changed circumstances.  Instead, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors has turned this LCP update into a developer’s wishlist, the exact opposite of what an LCP update is supposed to be.

Let’s just come right out and say that while there are a few parts of the LCP update which are good for the coastside environment, the focus of it as currently being considered is to maximize the number of housing units built here.  Nothing else seems to really matter.

Instead of providing true incentives to merge the many hundreds of substandard lots, they’re providing incentives to develop then separately, as “affordable housing”.  But the size bonus makes these houses LESS affordable.

Most people seem to agree that we need more commercial and more jobs.  But instead of reserving all of the existing commercially zoned land for commercial, this LCP update makes it easier to use it for housing, and then proposes rezoning open space for new commercial space.

Waiving fees for “affordable”, in addition to being a hidden tax on everyone else, is only a one-time thing—there is no lasting effect.  The FAR bonus and other incentives is a gift to the applicant which negatively impacts the community forever.

The consideration of highway Level of Service (LOS) is an incorrect approach which makes things seem not as bad as they actually are.  When I was into LOS in Southern California, we ONLY looked at LOS of intersections, not roads.  Sure, the LOS of SR 1 and SR 92 is not yet F, but if you look at the intersections, they are already at LOS F during peak times.

The water supply data is a real fiction, using average yield instead of safe yield.  Without massive storage which the coastside water districts don’t have and probably will never have, what must be considered is safe yield—how much they can expect the water supply to be during drought years.  Using safe yield, we’re already beyond a reasonable buildout.  Expect severe rationing during droughts under the BoS’ buildout scenario.

Photo: Pumpkin Dice

That that photo was worth waiting for!  Thanks.

I’ll have to ask him how exactly he got those spots to grow like that.  :-)

$2 million grant to help Pescadero investigate new sewer system

I left out schools for a couple of reasons.

- The planning agencies who control how much growth there will be and how fast it will happen don’t care about the fact that there is no school capacity to handle it.  You (Kevin) stated this.

- If I’d listed it, someone would come out of the woodwork and claim that some people try to limit growth by keeping the schools inadequate.

In any case, it was stated many years ago that you only need to complete 3 legs of the 4 legged stool in order to have excessive growth.

The “school mitigation fees” which are paid by new development fund less than half the cost of building school capacity to serve that new development.  Guess who pays the rest?  Current residents!

Since I agree with Mary that the road flooding problem has nothing to do with growth, I’d suggest that this morph of this topic needs to move elsewhere, maybe to Town Hall, and leave this thread for the original road issue.  Surely someone who’s been around for years could explain why this road flooding problem languishes?

On the other hand, if much of the town has chronic flooding problems, maybe that wasn’t such a great place to build a town?  And yes, I’ll agree that it’s not practical to move the town now.  But development in flood-prone sections of town should be completely banned.  Same for flood-prone areas of the midcoast.

Freakishly large pumpkin lumbers to victory in Half Moon Bay

Are we going to see photos of the “square pumpkins” mentioned in the caption?  Please...

$2 million grant to help Pescadero investigate new sewer system

Ok, my shorthand was apparently too short.  I thought that the word “capacity” was implied, but apparently not.  The revised first paragraph --

Of course this will annoy some people, but let’s review what’s required to fuel excessive growth:

1. Water capacity
2. Sewer capacity
3. Road capacity

The perpetually flooded road is not in this category at all, and without knowing any specifics of the issue, I find it appalling that it’s not fixed.  Maybe there are reasons, but I haven’t heard them.  Could it be as simple as the County’s policy against spending money to fix infrastructure which doesn’t serve to facilitate growth?  Just tell them it would be growth-inducing and they’ll be right out to fix it.

It seems to me that I’ve been reading about this problem for as long as I’ve lived in El Granada (12 years) and I don’t think it was new back then.

Mary Bordi concludes with ”I live in the Pescadero watershed, but I’m way up the creek.” Would that be “so to speak”?  (grin)

$2 million grant to help Pescadero investigate new sewer system

(LUP text referred to in previous posting):

section 2. PUBLIC WORKS AND SERVICE SYSTEM COMPONENT,
III. GENERAL ISSUES
D.  PHASING OF PUBLIC WORKS
1. Need for Phasing
a. Difficulty in Projecting Future Need for Public Works
b. Problems in Overbuilding Public Works
2. Method of Phasing

2.III.D.1.b:
Building public works and facilities to serve buildout estimates can be a problem.  Public money could be wasted on public facilities which are larger than what is required by the Local Coastal Plan.  There is then the danger of creating pressure to allow more growth than the LCP permits in order to use this oversized public works capacity.

In the short run, the major problem is that one public work, such as sewers, would build a great deal of new capacity encouraging growth which other public services and facilities, schools and roads, are not capable of handling.  These public services and facilities would then be over burdened.  The likelihood of some public facilities being much slower in development than others is high because of the differences in funding.  Presently, schools and transportation facilities like roads and transit have much more limitied funds for expansion than sewers, for example.

Phasing the development of public works and facilities in increments can lessen these problems.  The capacity of facilities can be sized to respond a short term, documentable need consistent with the Local Coastal Plan and the probable capacity of other related public works and services.  Later phases can be based on monitoring the growth rate and the actual needs of the community and the availability of related public works.

The argument against this type of phased development is the cost of incremental capital investment when any public facility expands in the future.  For certain facilities, such as underground pipes, some oversizing in case future expansion is needed may be justified for this reason.  The cost of a larger pipe is minimal when compared to the cost and disruption of digging the ground up for small, incremental increases in capacity.

Building for an uncertain future need can also be costly.  In any case, the risks of encouraging overbuilding which is out of phase with related public works capacities and Local Coastal Plan policies generally outweigh the possible savings by building for ulitimate need immediately.

Page 7 of 15 pages « First  <  5 6 7 8 9 >  Last »