Comments by Leonard Woren

Who should replace David Gorn?

Ray, a certain amount of growth is provided for in the planning documents—the City’s and the County’s Local Coastal Programs.  Anything which would support more growth than is spelled out in the LCPs is growth inducing.

To approve a new subdivision, under state law the planning agency (city or county, accordingly) must make 4 findings.  I don’t remember all 4 and don’t know how to find that code section, but two of those 4 required findings are that sewer and water capacity are available.  So if something like Pacific Ridge were to come along today, such a subdivision could not legally be approved because most or all of the findings can’t be made.

So… if things like sewer and water have been overbuilt, it makes it much easier for developers to argue for new subdivisions—and more density in existing developed areas—beyond what’s allowed in the existing planning documents (the LCPs.)

The County’s Land Use Plan (LUP) for the Coastside discusses infrastructure “leapfrogging”.  Simply put, when one part of the infrastructure which is well-funded (it mentions sewer capacity), expansion of same puts intense pressure to expand other parts of the infrastructure which aren’t as well funded (roads and schools), and therefore infrastructure expansion must be phased in order to allow other infrastructure to catch up.

The primary constraint to development on the Coastside from 1988 to 2000 was lack of sewer capacity.  When the sewer plant overexpansion came online in 2000, the next constraint became water.  So now we have this ridiculous situation of lots of residential wells in an urban area.  Nobody has found any other urbanized area in this country with such a density of private residential wells.  The experts are appalled.  Now, if CCWD wasn’t hell-bent on facilitating additional growth, they would alter their policies to favor getting people off of those wells and onto the public water system, instead of favoring new development.

To tie the bow on this, any infrastructure capacity built beyond what is required to serve the current buildout plan (which is a plan for growth) is growth inducing.  Infrastructure which is sized to support only the current buildout plan and no more is not growth inducing.  The Coastal Commission conditions insure that only the currently planned growth can be served by the pipeline expansion, therefore those conditions provide for growth without such provision being growth inducing.

Why do I say the current sewer plant was overbuilt?  Simple:  At buildout of the LCPs, Granada Sanitary District and Half Moon Bay will be stuck holding the bag on a large number of unsold sewer connections.  Therefore the overexpansion of the plant was growth inducing because there will be pressure to increase the buildout numbers in order to sell the excess remaining sewer capacity.

Who should replace David Gorn?

No, insuring that something isn’t growth-inducing is NOT the same as saying no-growth.  Growth-inducing in our case would mean fueling even more growth than is currently allowed/planned.  As conditioned by the CCC, the pipeline can provide service for the amount of growth allowed in the certified LCPs.  The CCC-imposed restrictions that Jim Larimer objects to simply insure that CCWD can not use the expanded pipeline to service more than what they’re currently allowed to serve.  What they’re currently allowed to serve is substantially more than what they’re currently serving, and that provides for a large amount of growth.  CCWD has a very large number of sold but not-yet-used connections, and many unsold priority connections.  That is the growth that the expanded pipeline is allowed to serve, but no more.  It’s the “no more” part that Jim Larimer and others object to, whether he admits to that in those words or not.

Who should replace David Gorn?

Mr. Larimer:  when responding to Hal Bogner’s questions, perhaps you could also include an explanation of why the CCWD board is so upset with the conditions which the CCC imposed when granting approval of the El Granada pipeline.  Those conditions were specifically to insure that it isn’t growth-inducing.  Since you claim that it’s not growth-inducing, I don’t see what’s wrong with any conditions which insure that.

The CCWD board has even discussed challenging or not complying with some of the conditions.

Who should replace David Gorn?

If George Muteff is a moderate, could someone name some extremists on the development/property rights side?

It is certainly much more appropriate to refer to Mike Ferreira as a moderate than to refer to George Muteff as such.  Mike and I are on the same side more often than not, but that’s exactly my point—Mike does try to find a workable middle ground and we often disagree on where that middle should be.  To people like George, it’s binary:  either you think that anyone should be allowed to do whatever at all they want on their property, or you don’t.  How’s that a moderate middle ground?

Hal Bogner wrote … “perhaps no one else has commented on your description of Mr. Muteff as a moderate yet because they are laughing too hard to type coherently. :-)” No kidding, Hal.

Given the razor thin margin in the election, there is only one moral choice for the appointment, and that’s Mike Ferreira.  Not like anybody thinks this City Council will do what’s reasonable.  They’d still have the majority, but 3:2 is never good enough, they want 5:0.

San Mateo County flunks growth management in new report

Smart Growth is an oxymoron.

Boys and Girls Club bulldozes probable wetlands on city’s land without a permit

The Yamagiwa legal mess is one of the more convoluted things we’ll ever see.  Everything in this comment is my opinion or my recollection or my guess, any of which might be wrong in this case.

As to “precedent”, it says at the very top that it cannot be cited.  This means that it has no effect on any other situation.

It seems to me that I read this decision when it came out, and had someone more familar with it explain it to me back then.  If people want to ask focused questions, I’ll see what I can remember and/or figure out again.

One of the more fun parts of it, if I’m understanding it correctly upon rereading, is that there was somewhat of a procedural catch-22.  Therefore, the trial court ordered the city to grant a CDP for the specific purpose of allowing the process to move forward to an appeal to the Coastal Commission.  But the city retained the right to challenge that court order, and if such challenge is successful (it was), the city can revoke the CDP (they did.)

The disagreement in Yamagiwa vs HMB is whether the Beachwood Subdivision is wetlands, and that disagreement flows from a disagreement over which definition of wetlands takes precedence.  HMB and the Coastal Commission argued that the HMB LCP definition takes precedence.  This is what was upheld on appeal in the decision referred to by Mary Bordi.  I believe that was appealed to the California Supreme Court, which declined to hear it.  Therefore, the appeals court decision stands, but it can’t be cited as precedent because it’s legally “unpublished.” Realistically, however, anyone contemplating similar action within that appellate jurisdiction can expect an equivalent result.

I hope this helps.  I’m sure if I’m wrong about anything here, someone more knowledgeable will post a correction.

I also have a really vague recollection that I was told that the Beachwood Subdivision’s Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) is now expired, meaning that to try again to get something permitted they’ll have to start from scratch.

Boys and Girls Club bulldozes probable wetlands on city’s land without a permit

As a Sewer Authority Midcoastside (SAM) director, I’ve driven past this property at least once a month for 9 years, and from casual observation, I’d say it looks quite likely to contain some wetlands.  I’ll have to look through my photos to see if I have any of that area with standing water weeks after rains stopped, an important wetlands hint.

20 feet north, on the other side of Sewer Plant Road, 7 acres owned by SAM is virtually all Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and unbuildable.  SAM received a detailed report from a biologist on this.  A copy could probably be obtained from the SAM office.  So the question is, why would one expect the land on the south side of the “road” (more like a very long private driveway) to be significantly different than that on the north side?

Carl—do I really need to enumerate the locations which are problematic to develop due to environmental issues, but have sympathetic projects proposed for them to make it difficult to argue against the development?

* Moss Beach Highlands - some senior housing (and a lot of “market rate housing” on new substandard lots, as if we needed more substandard lots on the Coastside.)
* (part of) North El Granada CUSD property - “affordable” housing (LCP designation, nothing proposed)
* Wavecrest - B&G club, new school
* Big Wave
* HMB site by Sewer Plant Road

It’s likely that without a “how can you be against x?” type project, none of those sites would be worth diddly due to sensitive habitats.  There is a reason why those sites are the last large open spaces inside the urban/rural boundary.  If they were easy to develop, they wouldn’t still be undeveloped.  In the case of the Big Wave site, owner(s) have been trying to build something there for years, and finally the Big Wave project came along.

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

... continuation of response to Ray ...

As for highway 1.. We need to create overpasses just for foot/bike traffic. This is done all the time on highway 1 in Southern Cal. so it can be done.

Agreed.  However, you’ll discover as I did that there are some very vocal opponents to overpasses.  The locations will be difficult so that views aren’t blocked, particularly in El Granada and probably some parts of Moss Beach and Montara.  With some very careful and sensitive analysis of the view issue, and minimalist designs, I think we CAN find acceptable places to build the overpasses.  I’d want to see buy-in from most of the community for each proposed location in that community.

Highway 1 needs to be 4 lanes for most of our area,

Again, you’re defining the need by the flawed buildout land use plan.  Fix the land use plan and we won’t need 4 lanes.  Don’t fix the land use plan and we’ll need 6 lanes.

and we need portage streets (not sure of the term) that run parallel to 1 on both sides, where it makes sense (like connecting tracts).

I agree, and there is probably broad agreement on this need.  (I think they’re called “frontage roads”.) However, one sticking point is that there needs to be some way to prevent significant through traffic from using the frontage roads instead of staying on the highway.  Maybe making them somewhat serpentine through the communities instead of parallel to the highway?  I.e., be sure that you can’t go long distances faster on the frontage road system when the highway is jammed.

[...]I know it seems like alot of money to accomplish but I think the County and State need to support this in order to meet the current growth rate dictated in the LCP.

The growth is not DICTATED in the LCP, it’s ALLOWED.  And again, it’s not the RATE that’s the issue, it’s the LIMIT.

Look how much is spent just on Slide Repairs?? All of this was unplanned monies.

That’s lunch money compared to how much it would cost to do what you’re suggesting.

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

Responding to Ray Olson’s comments of July 17 (in two parts due to length limit) (not length rate!):

So maybe there is a semantic issue when you say Growth Limit?

I don’t consider it semantics.  There is a specific amount of growth allowed.  The total amount of growth allowed is the limit.  Limit = how far can you drive on a tank of gas?  Rate = how fast can you empty the tank?

Are you saying that HMB cannot buildout more than 4,000 homes, and the unincorporated areas cannot build out more than 4,000 homes?

Yes (I didn’t look up the numbers so I could be off by 500 in either direction on both numbers.) But to clarify what you wrote above, it needs to be stated as “can’t build more than 4000 additional homes.

From reading the LCP I think we might be at half that right now?

Simply counting houses, yes, or close enough for discussion purposes.  However, the County LCP for the midcoast projects a certain population at buildout.  Population-wise, we’re easily at 65-70% of buildout So if only half the houses have been built so far, we will be at 150% of the projected population if all the allowed houses are built.

I am saying our infrastructure cannot even support this amount, let alone this housing maximum you state. We basically need to DOUBLE our capacity in at least our road infrastructure, and I think many folks would agree with this.

I can agree with your statement of the situation, but not your solution.  The solution MUST involve reducing the future demand for infrastructure by reducing the target number of people who will be living here at buildout.  As Carl May has put it, “you can’t build your way out of a problem caused by overbuilding.”

Now the tough questions. You ask how could we widen 92, and not impact the businesses adjacent to the highway. That is certainly a tough question and ultimately there would be a certain price to pay. In looking at the highway going WB I think there could be a road that runs parallel to 92 on the SB side. This road would be on the opposite side of the businesses.  [...] That road partially exists I think, and I think could be upgraded to support a little more traffic.

I thought of that in 1995.  I have asked more knowledgeable people about it.  It’s a private road.  Also, it’s not physically possible to make it as long as required.  Hopefully one will chime in here and expand the explanation of the dificulties with the parallel road.

[...]I am sure there are many other options, and Caltrans would definitely need to be involved to figure out the best connectors.

As others have pointed out, it would take a countywide initiative to widen 92 in the unincorporated area.  If you parallel part of 92, you eventually have to connect to the existing 2 lane part and then you’ve just MOVED the bottleneck.  And left to CalTrans, we’ll have an 8 lane double-decked freeway there.  No Thanks.

... continued ...

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

Ray, you are still not making the correct distinction between growth rate and growth limit.  The rate is the 1% (HMB) or 3% (County).  The limits are the 4000 more houses in HMB and 4000 more in the unincorporated area.  I am saying that 8000 more houses is too much and the Land Use Plans need to be revised to reduce those numbers.  That 8000 additional houses number has nothing to do with the 1% and 3% growth rates.  Reducing the number of additional houses to be built is not “negative growth”.  Negative growth would mean removing existing houses.

We’re going to have to agree to disagree on the issue of the character of the coastside as it relates to the number of lanes of the primary roads.  But I would ask you to explain how WB visitors will be able to turn left into the business on SR 92 if they had to cross two lanes of high speed traffic, and how will they will be able to turn left out to continue on WB to HMB if they have to cross two lanes of high speed traffic?  As I said, it’s hard enough now when there is one lane to cross.  I would really like to see the improvements I mentioned in my previous comment done ASAP before we consider any additional lanes.  Similarly for SR 1.  Now, it’s not that difficult to cross SR 1 on foot.  But if it’s expanded to 4 lanes it will be much more difficult, increasing the cry for more traffic signals, which as we all know slows down traffic, negating much of the improvement from the additional lane.  So what exactly would be the improvement?  SR 1 needs to be widened a bit for a set of safety improvements but that widening doesn’t need to include more through lanes.

In my business, when someone says “I need you to do ‘x’”, I always ask “What is your bottom line need?” I then look for the best solution to provide that need, which isn’t necessarily the “x” in the original request.  You’re saying you want more lanes.  I’m saying that you really want to increase the capacity and service level.  Why not first consider other methods of increasing the capacity and service level, which can be done with less money and therefore more quickly?  Do you really care which method is used, as long as your bottom line objective is met?

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

Matt Wrublewski - when you drove down SR 1, did you conveniently skip Santa Monica / Venice / Marina del Rey and Manhattan Beach / Redondo Beach / Hermosa Beach?  They are all examples of packing too much development (too many people) into an area.  And if I recall correctly, Lincoln Blvd is SR 1 and it’s 6 (sometimes 4) lanes, and nearly always totally jammed.  In fact, *every* through N/S street in the above list of cities and communities is virtually always jammed.  And it was that way 12 years ago when I left; I shudder to think what it’s like now since development continues but there is no more room to build new roads or lanes.

Don’t get me wrong—I loved visiting those areas, but I was glad that I could escape back to my home in Playa del Rey (later, in Westchester), the two less congested communities sandwiched between those grossly congested communities.

Also, in response to “If 92 is such a big problem why not just fix 92? make it 4 lanes or 6 or whatever”.  First of all, changing 92 like that would rather drastically change the character of the Coastside into something different from what it is and what so many of us liked when we moved here.  Second, that would be a complete disaster for the businesses along 92.  It’s difficult enough to turn left in and turn left out of those businesses now.  It would be completely impossible if 92 had more lanes.  What I think 92 needs is (only) a center turn/merge lane as now exists on SR 1 in part of Montara, plus wider shoulders and a respectable bike lane.  What you’re asking for is to increase the capacity of SR 92.  That can be done either by adding through lanes, or improving the flow on the existing lanes by various methods such as what I suggest here along with the curve straightening project.  Obviously I prefer the latter rather than adding lanes.

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

On July 5 Ray Olson wrote: Leonard: I’ve read your post above. It seems that you keep falling back to the “too many houses, too many people, too many cars, etc” argument. I don’t see it that way, since all these things will be happening, regardless of a bypass.

You missed my point entirely.  The land use plans need to be revised to reduce the final buildout numbers down to something which can be handled by the amount of resources we have and the amount of infrastructure which can be built within various constraints.

Ray continued: Growth is happening today, and will continue for the years to come. In addition, today we have unacceptable road infrastructure, let alone 5 years from now. A bypass is desparately needed to support today’s population, and the population 5/10 years from now. Do you disagree with this?

I can’t easily answer that briefly.  I don’t think that Foothill is a viable solution to anything.  Explaining why would largely be a rehash of things which numerous people have previously posted here.  Regardless, your fundamental assumption is the problem which needs to be fixed—we need to reduce the amount of growth which will happen, and slowing it down to 1% is not a solution.

On July 7 Jim Larimer wrote: The benefits to the community, the lot retirement program and the stoplight, appear to be small and of little consequence to the problems facing our community.

Yes indeed Jim, the benefits of the Pacific Ridge project are small and of little consequence…

Jim, I’ve asked this before and never gotten an answer from anyone:  If a developer pays to build infrastructure to serve those already here, and the latent demand uses up all that capacity but then the developer adds demand, then the next developer builds infrastructure to handle the demand from the previous project, and so on, where/how/when does it end?

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

On June 23, Mary Bordi mused about what are streets vs roads, etc.  I don’t have an answer to that, but maybe we can use the California Vehicle Code definitions.  “Road” is defined in VC 527:  http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=04869711091+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
(scroll down to Sec 527.) “Street” is defined in VC 590 (same URL, scroll further down.) One notable difference in the definitions is that a “street” is “publicly maintained and open to the use of the public.” Also, “Street includes highway.” [Since it’s a search result, I don’t know how long that URL is good for.  If it stops working, go to http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html check the “Vehicle code” box and enter “527” in the search box.]

Mary concluded with “What about the streets in El Granada, Moss Beach and Montara or are they roads?”

Many of them are just jokes, due to County neglect.  In a city, the city repaves the streets out of general city revenue.  San Mateo County expects the property owners with street frontage to pay for repaving, therefore streets in the Midcoast are essentially never repaved.  Therefore, I would argue that in the unincorporated area, we have mostly roads and a few streets.

Ray Olson asked “Leonard, why do you call it a train wreck? And I don’t understand how growth rate and growth limit are not related? Anyways, you state that the claim of 1% growth rate protecting HMB from overbuilding is incorrect. But, you don’t supply evidence of this. Can you support that claim? Honestly, I’m not trying to be confrontational, I want to understand the point you are trying to make.”

Think of driving from HMB to Woodside.  You can drive on Canada Road (1%) and get to Woodside in a certain amount of time.  Or you can drive on I-280 (3%) and get there in less time.  The distance ("buildout target") doesn’t change just because you drove slower to get there.

It’s a train wreck because at “buildout” under existing land use plans for HMB and for the unincorporated Midcoast, there will be far too many houses and therefore people and therefore cars and water use and whatever than the local environment can handle.  The 1% growth rate doesn’t protect HMB because the land use plan isn’t changed, and the buildout target of 8500 houses remains.  So all that happens with the 1% is that you reach the limit of 8500 houses in 75 years instead of the ~25 years that the Midcoast will take to reach its buildout.  The “Train Wreck” is that buildout of the current land use plans is just too many people here.

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

Ray, 1% is the rate at which you speed towards the train wreck.  Adding houses increases the size of the train wreck.

The growth rate and the growth limit are two totally different, nearly unrelated concepts.

The repeated claims that the 1% growth rate protects HMB from overbuilding are simply incorrect.  All the 1% limit does is delay the disaster by a few decades.

Caltrans is less certain a new traffic light is needed

Brian Dantes writes “HMB resisted even the attempt to *try* a solution”. Well of course they have to block the attempt to try it, because they know that it will in fact make a huge difference to the southbound commuters and then they’ll be in an even bigger pickle trying to block it after people see how much of an improvement it makes.

As to 92/Main during the evening commute, I just don’t understand the merchant’s issue.  The traffic signal should be set to be always red for Main St. traffic for something like 3pm-6pm while still allowing southbound left turns from westbound 92.  (In other words, the westbound 92 signal stays continuous green for that time period, so no EB->NB left turns there either.) Doesn’t that address most of the problem, leaving only the fact that once downtown, people will need to exit via Kelly or south Main, both of which are reasonable solutions?  Someone please explain how this specific proposal isn’t a win-win.

Caltrans is less certain a new traffic light is needed

“For one hour of peak commute time, from 6am to 7am, the light would decrease the wait time for southbound commuters from 31 minutes to about 7 minutes. [...] Apparently, the decrease in traffic in the past few weeks has diminished the need for the light.”

“Diminished” is not “eliminated”.  And cutting 24 minutes (77%) off of the northerner’s commute time is substantial.  Why is that being brushed off?  Never mind… Brian Dantes explained it quite well.

Measure S loses with 61% of the vote

In reference to Jonathan’s “As on election night, both yes and no votes fell from 2003, but yes votes fell more than no votes.”—If anyone is going to do a poll, I’d suggest that one question be “did you change your vote this time compared to previous CUSD parcel tax measures, and if so, what influenced that change?” The neutral wording is required because it would be useful to know both yes->no and no->yes reasons.

Measure S loses with 61% of the vote

Anyone who uses “liberal” as an epithet instantly loses all credibility and any possibility of respect from me.  (I’m neither a liberal nor a conservative, or else I’m both.  See the “World’s Smallest Political Quiz” at http://www.theadvocates.org/ )

Measure S loses with 61% of the vote

Jonathan Lundell writes “The 2006 numbers will rise a bit as some late ballots get counted, but that’s a serious drop in turnout, which would ideally be an ideal situation for the parcel tax measure. 30% of the 2003 no voters didn’t show up.” But Jonathan, by my calculations from the numbers you supplied, 37% of the 2003 yes voters didn’t show up.  That said, I still don’t know what to make of this other than what I replied on Midcoast-L (not yet posted), that nearly every measure which cost money lost on Tuesday’s ballot.  I think the only exception (in San Mateo County) is a school parcel tax in Menlo Park.

To Eric Schiller, there is nothing stopping people from donating the same amount of money to the schools that they would have paid on the parcel tax.  Are you going to do so?  After one of the previous attempts failed, a number of people came to a school board meeting and presented checks for that amount.  (If I recall, Ric Lohman gave 2 years worth in his check.) Wouldn’t the tax deduction be identical?  So the question is why won’t people contribute that money unless everyone has to?  If 61% of the parcel tax supporters voluntarily contribute the same amount, that would still be a huge help to the schools.

P.S.  Calling the non-supporters “child abusers” probably doesn’t help your case.

Albertsons closing in HMB

Regarding the Strawflower shopping center looking nicer than the Albertson’s center, while that’s true it does need to be pointed out that the traffic flow through the parking at Strawflower was designed by a total moron.  The other center doesn’t have that problem.

Some people want a TJ’s there, others say the space is too big, someone else suggests “copying SF’s new Embarcadero Ferry Building concept with many different gourmet specialty food shops”.  So, wouldn’t it work to have a TJ’s _and_ some specialty shops?

Otherwise, I think a movie theatre is a good idea.  A movie theatre is the one project that I believe most of the Coastside has always been in favor of.  Is the parking lot big enough for a two screen theatre to be open while the other businesses there are open?

Page 11 of 15 pages « First  <  9 10 11 12 13 >  Last »