Comments by Leonard Woren

Supervisors’ vision for the Midcoast: double the number of houses (and cars)

Lorraine’s comment reminded me of something I forgot to include in my earlier comment:  At one of the County Planning Commission hearings on the LCP update, one Commissioner, in arguing for a lower growth rate cap, said “The Coastside is headed for a train wreck and I don’t see any reason to speed towards it.”

As to Lorraine’s question of what can be done, one thing to do is that EVERYONE who is concerned about this needs to send email to or make phone calls to or make appointments with and speak to as many of the supervisors as possible BEFORE the decisions are made.  I guarantee that the developer/real-estate lobby is doing exactly that.  The supervisors need to hear just as stridently from the other side.  And even though it’s been scheduled such that it’s difficult for working people to attend, a large turnout at the 2pm-5pm December 6 hearing can’t hurt.  I believe the location has been announced as the Adcock Center in Half Moon Bay.

Supervisors’ vision for the Midcoast: double the number of houses (and cars)

When you read through and think about the draft recommendations, one thing becomes crystal clear:  the main priority is maximizing the number of housing units.  The next priority is facilitating other development.  What I don’t see in the actual proposed changes is anything that improves environmental protection, and the only thing that I see which would improve visitor access is 4-laning of SR 1, which would completely destroy the semi-rural ambience, and may not happen in our lifetimes due to lack of funding.

My thought after reading the document is “why do they (BoS) hate us so much?  Jealousy perhaps?

The Coastside is already suffering from too much being built, and too quickly.  So why are they proposing setting the rate limit higher than not only the historical average rate, but also higher than the recent rates?  And why exempt affordable units from the rate?  The CCC staff took exception to that.  What should be done is guarantee that affordable will not be denied a permit due to the limits, but they should still be counted.  I.e., put them at the front of the queue, even if it means “borrowing” from the next year’s quota.  For example, if the limit is 52 and 50 have already been issued and an application is received to build a 4 unit affordable building, issue the permit and take the excess 2 from next year’s quota.  Simple.

Another critically important issue is that under the current COSC zoning, it’s extremely difficult to build houses on the Burnham Strip fronting El Granada.  The Supervisors are so bent on allowing housing anywhere that it can possibly be built that they are now proposing rezoning to RM/CZ which will remove all existing limitations and protections for the Strip, resulting in a solid wall of oversized houses there.  (Many of the parcels are in the half acre range.  After RM/CZ setbacks are factored in, there could still be 12,000 sq ft houses there under the proposed rezoning!) Consider that in the case of the single existing house, there is total view blockage for the complete frontage of that property, even with the existing COSC 10% lot coverage limit.

McClung leads Ferreira by 13 votes, McKimmie leads King by 2; results still incomplete

“Remade”???  Huh?  What does that mean?  That concerns me.  Remember the controversy over “pregnant chad”.  This could undermine my very high confidence factor in the accuracy and integrity of SMC Elections department.

Coastsider now requires real names and prior review of all comments

I agree that Open Line is a big problem.  Scott wrote “it provides a home for cowardly attacks.” While that’s true, I’d add that—maybe more significantly—it provides a home for baseless, unsupported, and unsupportable attacks.

Thanks for posting the NYT link.  It’s a good article.  I guess we won’t see the Review adopting those policies…

Somebody please explain to me what the difference is between the Review and the way that Voice of the Coast was characterized by some people?  Both have a clear agenda, and both are selective in what “news” they report.  And the Review’s slant is much more blatant.  VotC is needed for that very reason:  to give a voice to the viewpoints that the Review ignores and/or disparages.

Coastsider now requires real names and prior review of all comments

I think there are 2 reasonable setups:
1) Unmoderated, real name required, people are held responsible for what they post.  Subscribers must be vetted (real name verified) before they’re allowed to post.
2) Moderated, real name optional, moderator tosses back unacceptable anonymous posts.  Moderator may still require that the real name be known to the moderator.

Since I was old enough to read a newspaper I’ve never understood why (print) newspapers won’t print anonymous letters.  After all, they are screening what they print.

Newspapers that require real names and then on top of that edit what’s submitted and sometimes change the meaning, intentionally or unintentionally, are out of line.  The Review does this routinely. (*) If it’s my name on the letter, it needs to be printed as I wrote it. (**) If the editor has a problem with what’s submitted, they should kick it back for revision.

So Coastsider’s new policy doesn’t fall into either of my “reasonable setups.” While I assume that approved posts will be put up unedited, I still think that the moderator should allow some anonymous posts.  I wouldn’t allow any anonymous attacks, even on government agencies, because that’s just an underhanded way of attacking the people running those agencies.  Yes, it’s a fuzzy line between legitimate criticism and attacks.  That’s why moderating can be difficult.

(*) An example of the Review tweaking a letter and royally screwing up the meaning is a letter that was submitted using the term “CQx”, which I invented in some private email after CQP turned into CQL (or was it the other way around?).  (Clearly the recipients of that private email understand CQx since one of them used in the letter to the Review.) The Review changed it to whichever the current name was, which destroyed the point of writing “CQx”.

(**) An example of unacceptable editing of something with my name on it was a submission from me containing “CSD”.  The Review changed my letter by spelling out what CSD stands for and then inserting “(known by the acronym CSD)”.  Well, unpronouncable initials are NOT “acronyms”, and I actually got an anonymous phone call from a retired teacher who was miffed enough about the misuse of “acronym” to call me to straighten me out about it.  I had to explain that I understood that and it wasn’t the way I wrote it.

Mendocino residents are fighting Caltrans to keep a coastal bridge scenic and pedestrian-friendly

This isn’t the first time that CalTrans has tried this stupidity.  A year or two ago when I was at a Coastal Commission meeting to videotape an item of local interest, a preceeding agenda item was regarding another location in Northern California where CalTrans was trying to replace a small bridge with a big ugly view-blocking bridge at a very scenic harbor.  If I recall correctly, the CCC told them to take a hike.  (If you follow the link in this story you can read about another location where CalTrans tried this—I think it’s the one that I was present for.) CalTrans puts zero value on views, so even though this current one is not local, it’s important that we support the people fighting it.  CalTrans uses questionable studies for their safety claims regarding railing style.  The opposition supplied data showing that other states use different railing styles without any of the safety problems that CalTrans claims.

Coastsider endorses Paul Perkovic, Bob Ptacek, Jim Harvey for Montara Water board

I just read Peggy’s page on Smartvoter via the link in this story.  I’m going to go take a Tylenol now.

Lawsuits were a big theme at Tuesday’s debate

HMB Ranger obviously wasn’t a math major.

Lawsuits were a big theme at Tuesday’s debate

Apparently that is what he’s suggesting.  He’s clearly a “houses everywhere, logic be damned” person.  Kevin, thanks for providing the link, and quoting the fundamental conclusion.

Note that this document was written by a firm whose business it is to analyze these things.

In response to HMB’s Rangers latest comment, yes, there’s a “formal process”, but the approvals are still discretionary.

I’m not going to argue with HMB Ranger any more on this, since he thinks that his “facts” are supported and that mine aren’t, there’s clearly no point.  He in fact has presented no support whatsoever for his claims.

Lawsuits were a big theme at Tuesday’s debate

(1) Somehow I don’t think it’s been zoned PUD forever.  It was previously ag land.  Notice that it used to be called Dykstra Ranch?
(2) The rezoning to PUD was discretionary.
(3) The law was violated at the time of the subdivision.  That’s long past.
(4) But the damage has been done by the rezoning / subdivision, and it’s very difficult legally to undo that.
(5) That statement is so ridiculous that it’s difficult to argue with.  If a house brings in $3000/year in taxes but it costs $3700/year to provide city services that are required as a result of that house being there, it’s a net loss.  Your thinly-veiled slam about managing expenses is a straw-man argument.  Every city in California knows that houses are a net loss.  Are you going to claim that every city in California is mismanaging their finances?
(6) You have given no reasons whatsoever why the subdivision should have been approved.  You can’t claim the PUD zoning requires the subdivision to be allowed because the only reason for the *discretionary* rezoning from ag to PUD in the first place would have been to facilitate development as a subdivision.  If there was no subdivision intent there would have been no reason to rezone to PUD.

I stand by my statement that the current mess is Naomi’s fault.

Lawsuits were a big theme at Tuesday’s debate

(1) Ag land
(2) approval of new subdivisions is generally discretionary
(3) under State law, approval of new subdivisions requires making findings that probably weren’t made for Pacific Ridge because I don’t think they can be made anywhere on the Coastside
(4) the Coastside already has an excess of residential, why create more
(5) since houses are a net drain on a city’s finances, new subdivisions end up costing existing residents
and most importantly:
(6) why SHOULD it have been approved?  There is exactly ZERO benefit to the city for approving that subdivision, but the costs are significant.

Lawsuits were a big theme at Tuesday’s debate

Let me give a specific example to elaborate on Ric’s comment about “solve problems, not create them.” The Terrace Ave area people are upset with Mike and Jim, blaming them for the Pacific Ridge settlement which will bring traffic from maybe 60 homes through Terrace.  But that was a solution, because Pacific Ridge was approved by Naomi to be hundreds of houses.  Naomi created the problem by approving a subdivision that should not have been approved.

Coastsider endorses Ferreira, Grady, and Skinner

For some reason I have not seen anyone anywhere say this, so I guess I have to:

After listening to George Muteff’s blustering every time I see a City Council meeting on MCTV, it’s clear to me that he is running for City Council for one reason and one reason only:  He’s upset about the development restrictions on his own property.

I understand that the Terrace neighborhood people are unhappy with Ferreira and Grady due to the settlement with Pacific Ridge.  They are mad at the wrong people—wasn’t it Naomi Patridge’s city council that approved the Pacific Ridge subdivision?  If the subdivision hadn’t been approved there would be no issue now.  Blame her, not the people who managed to get the stupid project cut down to a fraction of its original size.

Coastsider interviews the guy who writes the Review’s editorial corrections

Yeah, I too initially missed the “humor” tag, until I noticed that the “Review Editorial Corrections Editor” name was given as “Oliver DeNiles”, which is quite funny all by itself.

Those of us who have been interviewed by the Review know that they will mangle statements, and when we complain “that’s not what I said” the Review’s response is virtually always “we checked the reporter’s notes and we stand by the story [as printed].” Of course, it’s beyond the realm of their comprehension that maybe the reporter’s notes don’t accurately reflect what was actually said.  A recent article on the danger of making the left turn into the Montara lighthouse driveway quoted me using some words that I would never use in public.  Did I complain?  No; what would be the point?  The only way to avoid being misquoted in the Review is to avoid being quoted in the Review.

Good fences make good neighbors, but bad fences make bad neighborhoods

When I was 14 we moved into an old house in a small city in the L.A. area.  I was used to 5 foot high block walls around every back yard, but this new neighborhood was quite interesting—there were few side yard fences.  (Nearly everyone had a back fence because there was an alley.) If was nice and friendly that we could walk halfway up the block in back yards.  And I don’t recall there ever being a problem.  Then newer richer people moved in and fences went up.  Significant charm was lost.  I support the Portola Valley proposal.

In the unincorporated Midcoast there are restrictions on fence heights within the front setback (generally 20 feet).  Good luck getting that enforced by the County.

Accident on Highway 1 in Moss Beach/Montara kills one, seriously injures another

In driver training in high school, I was taught that you NEVER turn the wheels until you will be able to start and complete the turn.  Otherwise, you WILL be pushed into oncoming traffic if you’re hit from behind.  This applies to any left turn where you have to stop and wait for oncoming traffic to clear, even if you’re in a relatively safe left-turn lane.  I don’t know why this isn’t taught anymore.

As to Barry’s “I haven’t been able to verify this tip, but it makes sense.”, I can’t believe that it’s not intuitively obvious (i.e., why would you need to verify it?) If you have the wheels turned, you will go left into oncoming traffic whether the reason for forward motion is moving your foot from the brake to the accelerator or getting hit from behind.  Note that when stopped, you are likely to be only lightly holding on the brakes, and the shock of being rear-ended will likely cause you to release the brake anyway, allowing the car to go in the direction the wheels are pointing.

HMB has an encouraging meeting with state agencies in the park

I hope the design of the park can partly be an environmental teaching tool, letting visitors see and appreciate sensitive habitat.  Maybe some interpretive signage at key locations?  The sensitive habitat on the property should be considered an asset, not a defect as a number of the naysayers try to slant it in their attempts to tar the City Council.

Did a developer steal this woman’s camera?

Lack of oversight???  How about active malice?  Check out the wording of staff’s comments here:

http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/tm_bin/tmw_cmd.pl?tmw_cmd=StatusViewCase&shl_caseno=VIO2005-00135

Should we rename HMB Airport after Jessica Dubroff?

Yes, airports should be named after the area they serve.  Just because you can supply a laundry list of airports named after famous people doesn’t mean that it’s the right thing to do.  ("Two wrongs don’t make a right.") I don’t even know all of those names, and at least 2 in that list don’t even deserve a dog kennel named after them.  Naming public works after people is just too controversial, as the number of comments to this article proves.  I’ll settle for requiring a 2/3 vote of approval of all people within a certain distance of the public work to be renamed.

Should we rename HMB Airport after Jessica Dubroff?

I’ve previously stated that I’m against renaming the airport because airports should be named after the area they serve.

This time I’m commenting on the security remarks above.  While I would never defend anything that the Shrub or his administration does, I will point out that HMB Airport is typical of most (85%?) municipal airports around the country:  no control tower and basically unattended.  HMB Airport has perimeter security, although it’s the “locks keep honest people honest” type of security.  But what would you do?  The real problem is that they probably don’t do serious background checks before issuing private pilot’s licenses, and the real risk is not what someone may do *AT* HMB Airport, but what they might do *elsewhere*, taking off from here or any other similar airport, or even a private airstrip (yes, those still exist; I used to live near one that had previously been used by Howard Hughes.)

To veer even farther off topic, the real problem is that no President is willing to actually deal with security of the national border.  Fix that and airport security becomes irrelevant.

Page 14 of 15 pages « First  <  12 13 14 15 >