Comments by Kevin J. Lansing

Joe Cotchett to represent Valerie Plame against Cheney

All I have to say is: Way-to-go Joe.

Opinion: City Council to HMB kids: Drop dead

I don’t have a strong opinion on this, other than to say that there is no shortage of code enforcement issues in the City that one could argue should be addressed. Examples might be the proliferation of semi-permanent “Pod” storage structures on people’s driveways and the illegal use of garages as living quarters. That said, many other California cities have policies that prohibit leaving basketball hoops in the street. See, for example,

http://www.ci.citrus-heights.ca.us/home/index.asp?page=836

Five candidates running for CUSD board, deadline for filing extended

Readers of Coastsider.com might recall that Kirk Riemer and Jolanda Schreurs (together with CCWD directors Chris Mickelsen and James Larimer) were all found responsible for the phony anonymous attack ad against CUSD candidate Jonathan Lundell in 2005.

For background, see the following link to the August 2005 Coastsider story
http://coastsider.com/comments/324_0_1_0_C/

which contains a comment by Barry Parr posted on Aug 27, 05 | 10:05 pm

“…The [attack] ad was purchased by CCWD Director Chris Mickelsen. He said last week that fellow water board director Jim Larimer and another man, whose name he couldn’t remember, were responsible for the ad.

“Cabrillo board President Jolanda Schreurs said the third man is Kirk Riemer. Riemer’s name appears on a list of Coastsiders who endorsed Lundell’s opponent, Charles Gardner. Riemer did not return a telephone call seeking comment.”

HMB Review editor Clay Lambert actually saw fit to run a formal apology for the phony anonymous attack ad. He said:

“Sometimes it seems as if our democratic process has been hijacked by sixth-graders.”

http://hmbreview.com/articles/2004/11/03/news/editorial/story1.txt

Environmentalists didn’t kill Measure S

Ray:
I think you need to brush-up on the history of the Wavecrest middle school fiasco.

See, for example, the following chronology:
http://coastsider.com/comments/579_0_1_0_C/

Over the years, many people tried to convince the school board to go with the Cunha site rather than tie the district to a highly-speculative land development deal at Wavecrest (see link below for more history).

http://builditnow.sanmateo.org/

The loudest cheerleaders for the Wavecrest site over the years included former CUSD board members Ken Jones, Ken Wilson, Marina Stariha, Ruth Palmer, current CUSD board member Jolanda Schreurs, current CCWD director James Larimer, and last but certainly not least, the HMB Review publisher.

We were told repeatedly that the Wavecrest middle school site was a “good deal” for our community. We were told that the 1996 Measure K bond language prevented the school district from going with the Cunha location because it was not a “new site”.

In Fall 2005, we found out that the proposed Wavecrest middle school was about $30 million underfunded (cost = $56-62 million versus about $27 million of remaining Measure K money in bank).

Many of us recall attorney (and then-CUSD board member) Ken Wilson’s legal opinion on the Measure K bond language back in June 2002. His forceful opinion during a CUD board meeting was a crucial factor in persuading 4 out the 5 CUSD board members to reject the Cunha site and stick with Wavecrest (CUSD Board member Dwight Wilson was the sole dissenting vote back then). Here is a link to the 2002 HMB Review article describing the event:

http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2002/06/12/export8793.txt

At the time, Jolanda Schreurs (who was not yet a member of the CUSD board) was part of a group that threatened to sue the school district if the school board tried to use the Measure K bond money to build at Cunha. In Fall 2005, two reputable attorneys on the CUSD Professional Advice Committee stated that the Measure K bond language was very general and presented no problems whatsoever for building at Cunha.

Mr. (Ken) Wilson’s faulty legal opinion and Ms. Schreurs’ litigation threats helped to delay the start of the Cunha project by at least 3 years--which translates directly to millions of dollars in escalated construction costs.

Environmentalists didn’t kill Measure S

Ray Olson wrote:
“...how can one extrapolate Mary [Ascher’s] letter to be about “environmentalists”?...I think where there has been the most disagreement is in regards to “zero development on the coast”. To meet this agenda many tactics are used, including, but not limited to, looking at environmental impacts, which are sometimes at odds with the needs of the community.”

Ray, you are now the one who is extrapolating from people’s legitimate concerns about environmental impacts to some conjured-up agenda for “zero development on the coast,”(as you put it), which cannot ever happen.

By the way, when you say “the needs of the community,” who defines those needs? Is it real estate agents? The Chamber of Commerce? Property-rights activists? Developers?

Finally, no matter how you define the “needs of the community,” that does not give any group the right to ignore environmental laws or vilify people who try to uphold them. The latter is what Mary Ascher was trying to do in her letter, which is why it has generated such a reaction here.

Environmentalists didn’t kill Measure S

Mary Ascher wrote:

“There is a small group of politically motivated individuals on the Coastside who have been responsible for repeatedly destroying any chance we as a community have of improving our infrastructure...”

Mary, Just to be clear, who are the members of this “small group”? Does it include people like me who insist that environmental laws should be followed, and also support our local schools and our children, and also care very much about the future of our town?

Environmentalists didn’t kill Measure S

Barry:
Thanks once again for setting the record straight. Since I no longer subscribe to the HMB Review, I hadn’t seen the June 28 letter-to-the-editor by Mary Ascher which is linked in the above story.

http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2006/06/28/news/letter_to_the_editor/story4.txt

I am someone who considers themselves to be an environmentalist. I voted for Measure S and I publicly supported it. I am a parent of two children in Hatch elementary, and I have spent many hours volunteering in the classroom.

Thus, I find Ms. Ascher’s letter to be quite offensive.  I have to say, however, that I not surprised by her politically-motivated diatribe, given the company that she keeps. Ms. Ascher is a member of the San Mateo County Association of Realtors (SAMCAR). Her spouse is a director of the Coastside County County Water District (CCWD). Neither organization can be described as “environmentally friendly,” to put it mildly.

SAMCAR actively campaigned against the Coastside-voter-approved boundary expansion of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) in 2004. For years, several of the CCWD directors have been engaged in a PR campaign and lobbying effort to strong-arm the decisions of public agencies that regulate the environmental permitting of CCWD’s water supply expansion projects. In years past, members of both organizations have been some of the loudest cheerleaders for the Wavecrest project. Many of the very same people are now pushing the Big Wave project.

http://coastsider.com/comments/1535_0_1_0_C/

The precinct results show that the defeat of Measure S was due to a failure of the CUSD school board to gain the trust of an across-the-board spectrum of Coastside voters. This happened for reasons that have absolutely nothing to with the false accusations in Ms. Ascher’s letter.  For an understanding of those reasons, see the following:

http://coastsider.com/comments/1540_0_1_0_C/

NY Times finds the tacos of its dreams in Pescadero

From the NYT story:
“There is no sign in the window,” a local offers, “but there is a taqueria in the gas station....Outside, the quiet of Pescadero is breathtaking...” This the most-emailed story on the NY Times website yesterday.

Great. Fast forward to 2011:

PRESS RELEASE “Taco Bell announces that is opening its newest store in a former gas station located in Pescadero California...”

Devil’s Slide to reopen August 4

Dan Blick wrote:
“If you’re still grousing about CalTrans, what would it take to make you happy?”

Well, for starters, how about having them pull out those ugly orange-bag-covered lights at the intersection of Hwys 1 and 92?

CPR invites you to “Rock with Local Bands”

Brian, your post covers a lot of ground besides the topic I raised. The purpose of my original comment was to see if CPR had any property rights concerns about this case.

It’s one thing to go around demanding forbearance after-the-fact, when irreversible changes to the environment have already been made, and quite another to go though the proper legal channels.

If the City of HMB had done something like this, would your reaction be the same?

CPR invites you to “Rock with Local Bands”

Mary,
Speaking of your group, I would be very interested in hearing CPR’s views regarding the Peninsula Aeromodelers case, which is currently the subject of an HMB enforcement case (see links below).

http://www.hmbcity.com/peninsual_aeromodelers_071806.pdf

http://www.rcgroups.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=2386&size=big&sort=1&cat=500

The case involves the un-permitted use of other people’s property, not to mention claims of “prescriptive easements,” which is a kind of private-sector derivitive of eminent domain--an issue that CPR has been very vocal about in the past (see link below).

http://www.c4pr.org/article/64/will-someone-be-wanting-your-property-next

Big box ban appeal denied

For those who are interested, the City of Turlock’s “Big Box Ordinance” can be found on the website at the following link:

http://www.ci.turlock.ca.us/citydepartments/communityplanning/bigboxordinance.asp

Muller appointed to fill Gorn’s city council seat

With all due respect to Susan, who made a lot of excellent points, I really can’t see the idea de-emphasizing “land use issues.”

The City just spent more than a year on the Local Coastal Program update trying to craft an ordinance that would implement the 1% growth rate that voters asked for by passing Measure D in 1999. Recently, the City received 10 pages worth of questions and concerns from the California Coastal Commission staff that will need to be addressed before the City’s proposal can be submitted for certification by the full Coastal Commission.

So, at least in this one area, “land use issues” need to be a top priority, in my opinion.

Letter:  Why hasn’t anything been done about the evening commute?

Robert Steger wrote:
“This free right turn light issue can be solved if MOST ALL of us living in the north coast bypass the left on 92 and instaead drive one extra block south and make the u turn back onto north 1, then make the ‘free right turn” onto 92.”

Robert, What makes you think this is not already happening? I know for a fact that it is. As expected, traffic patterns have adjusted to establish an equilibrium where travel times are roughly equalized across different routes (a.k.a. the efficient traffic hypothesis).

Consequently, turning on the signals to eliminate the “free right turn” would not be expected to change average travel times.

C. Jason Mancebo wrote:
“I can add that the new electronic sign Caltrans put on EB 92 jwo Main St is both irelevant and a source of congestion.”

I think you are onto something there. Even a slight slowdown for each car as people read that sign could have significant cumulative effects.

Letter:  Why hasn’t anything been done about the evening commute?

During the afternoon commute, the main problem is the traffic light at Crystal Springs Reservoir where two separate lanes become one. Note that there is no “free right turn” at that intersection.

The above should be kept in mind by anyone who thinks that eliminating the “free right turn” from northbound Hwy 1 onto eastbound 92 is going to somehow solve the morning congestion problem. It won’t.

As for why morning traffic flow has been particularly slow over the last few days, I have no concrete explanation. It does seem, however, that there are a lot more large trucks on the road in the morning---more so than I remember about a month ago. The trucks slow the uphill climb on Hwy 92 and the merge at Hwy 35. This slowdown propogates all the way back to Main Street. Turning on the lights at Hwys 1/92 is not going to solve that problem either.

HMB Planning Director Liebster resigns

I know this won’t stop the distortions and untruths, but here goes.

According to Mr. Larimer:
“...the El Granada pipeline project was fully vetted in Jan. 1999. Every environmental study, every waiting period, every procedure required by California and Federal law had been completed.”

This is false. Phase 3 of the pipeline project (the most complex phase which involves numerous environmentally sensitive areas) still requires two separate Coastal Development Permits (one from the County of San Mateo and one from the City of HMB)

The applications for these CDPs are currently in the processing stage. The results of recent biological studies inform the analysis of the assigned planners. No public hearings have yet been held for these CDP applications in either the County or the City.

Before any CDPs can be issued, both the County and the City must ensure compliance with the California Coastal Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, and both state and federal Endangered Species Acts. By law, any approvals issued at the local level may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission.

HMB Planning Director Liebster resigns

For the benefit of the readers, I’m not going to try to correct all of the false statements and distortions in Mr. Larimer’s post. 

The bottom line is that several of the CCWD directors seem to be of the opinion that their pipeline projects are exempt from having to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Coastal Act. They are mistaken. 

Jack Liebster has over 30 years of professional planning experience. Readers can make up their own minds about whether Jack or Mr. Larimer is correct about the application of the law.

HMB Planning Director Liebster resigns

As Chair of the HMB Planning Commission, I would like to wish Jack all the best and thank him for the many extra hours he has put in for the City over the years.

The job of Planning Director is extremely grueling. One is constantly being lobbied by applicants to expedite their pet projects through the approval process. In many cases, politically-connected people apply all sorts of pressure in an effort to short-cut the protections of the state’s environmental laws.

The Planning Department if often criticized for delaying the project, when in fact the City’s professional planners are simply performing the job of due diligence that is required by law.

The following is a perfect example:
http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2006/07/06/news/editorial/story3.txt

Kevin Lansing

San Mateo County flunks growth management in new report

Steve:
Thanks for calling attention to this data. I can’t help but notice that places which are presently less built-out also tend to receive the lowest scores for so-called “smart growth.”

I think this shows that developers are attracted to places with a lot open space land. Why?  Because sprawl-inducing development is a profitable venture for them. Unfortuantely, such development is net money-loser for the local governments that must supply public services to the new houses.

Unlike San Mateo County’s (dismal) growth mangagement of the Midcoast, the City of HMB is currently imposing some restraint on development and sprawl.

The strategy of the County Board of Supervisors is to pack as many new houses as possible into the Midcoast and let others deal with the long-term consequences.

County stops, and then allows, filling and grading at Big Wave

Kind of a curious how both David Cline (Boy’s and Girls Club) and the owners of the Big Wave property both decided to jump into the grading...er...pumpkin growing business in the same week.

We might want to keep an eye out for a bulldozer to show up on the Wavecrest property in the next few days. 

Page 13 of 18 pages « First  <  11 12 13 14 15 >  Last »