Comments by Kevin J. Lansing

Letter: Sign and distribute a petition to Trader Joe’s

June 17, 2006

I think people should pay close attention to what Frank Long is saying. All this gushing enthusiasm over the possibility of a Trader Joe’s is a getting a bit troubling.

Once again, people are deluding themselves into thinking they can have it all.

They want to live in a coastal area of pristine natural beauty. With un-congested roads. With top-notch schools. With affordable housing for all. In close proximity to two major urban centers that offer well-paying and rewarding jobs.

And now to make things even better: a shiny new store where one can buy gourment foods and wine at really cheap prices without having to drive for...what?...20-25 minutes?

The world doesn’t work that way. You want something, you have to give something else up.

So if people eventually get their beloved Trader Joe’s, something is going to be sacrificed.

I won’t be signing that petition. Sorry John.

Letter: Sign and distribute a petition to Trader Joe’s

June 14, 2006

Why is it necessary to tell them where to put the new store? As in:

“...give serious consideration to
locating a store at the former Albertson’s Market located at 150 San Mateo Road.”

The old movie video rental place and the adjoining store near Burger King have been vacant for many months--why couldn’t that also work for a Trader Joes? I’m sure that a successful company like TJ can make their own location decisions.

I have heard a lot of people say they want a movie theatre. If that happens, then I think there are many of us who would prefer not to see open space bulldozed and then paved over for yet another Coastside parking lot.

It seems to me, that the least impact to the environment would be to put a movie theatre (or some such thing that people want) at the old Albertson’s and perhaps a Trader Joe’s type place at the old movie rental.

Lastly (and this of course is not directed at you John--a veteran of countless petition drives), I wish more people had embraced this kind of activist spririt in Fall 2005 to protest the Board of Supervisor’s buildout plans for the Midcoast.

I guess that issue is considered less important than being able to buy decent wine for $5/bottle.

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

July 18, 2006

Ray, your post and many others illustrate that there is no shortage of ideas about how to go about expanding the coastside road infrastructure.

However, the financial and regulatory reality that we live in is quite different: the options for expanding highways 92 and 1 over the next 10 to 20 years are extremely limited.

Unfortunately, neither the County nor the City of HMB have adequately adjusted their land use planning to reflect this reality, in my opinion.

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

July 11, 2006

Matt Wrublewski wrote:
“And letting San Mateo ignore the problem is only setting us up for an even larger problem later.”

To be fair, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors are not just ignoring the problem, they are actively pursuing a buildout plan that will makes things a lot worse.

http://coastsider.com/comments/1038_0_1_0_C/

http://coastsider.com/comments/1488_0_1_0_C/

By the way, the 1 percent growth rate employed in your calculations should only be used when talking about HMB. The Midcoast currently has a 3 percent growth rate limit and the Supervisors are proposing to drop it down to 2 percent (plus many exceptions of course).

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

July 03, 2006

In response to Mr. Larimer’s post:

1. I think we all know that the official Census figure of 2.75 persons per household is a gross underestimate for the Midcoast and HMB. As a result, the true population growth rate of HMB and hence the true growth rate of the number of cars on the road is significantly higher than the 1 percent figure called for under Measure D.

2. I would dispute the description of Foothill Blvd as an “alternate route.” It would serve only to split traffic flow for a brief distance. All cars would then have to merge back together at the intersection of Foothill and Hwy 92 to follow the same route as today. That intersection/merge point would create a new traffic bottleneck that does not exist today.

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

June 18, 2006

Don:
When I read your arguments closely, I get the distinct impression that your main goal is to kill that settlement agreement. All of the talk about the Foothill “bypass” and claims of addressing traffic problems are just a sideshow, it would appear.

If that’s your goal, then fine. But it would be helpful if you would just state the true goal upfront.

Just to be clear: I’m not rendering any opinion on the the merits of the settlement agreement here.

CCF asks Coastal Commission 25 questions

June 17, 2006

Don:
You’re setting up a false dichotomy. The discussion has been about whether the Foothill “bypass” will help traffic flow or not. In order for that discussion to take place, people have to consider how many houses might be built along the “bypass” route.

That’s where the settlement agreement enters the discussion--because it affects how many houses might be built. You talk as if people should vote on the merits of the settlement agreement and then vote on the merits of the Foothill “bypass.” These two concepts cannot be separated as you imply.

Coastal Commission alerts HMB to problems with Foothill Bypass

June 19, 2006

Terry, in response to your comment above: As I think you know, the role of the planning commission in any City does not include things like proposing new road projects.

If a majority of the elected City Council members wish to pursue a new road project, then the City Council would direct the City manager to pursue that project via the standard permitting process.

The role of the planning commission would be to review the City’s permit application to ensure compliance with the California Coastal Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, and any other applicable laws or ordinances.

Coastal Commission alerts HMB to problems with Foothill Bypass

June 16, 2006

Ray Olsen wrote:
“I don’t think we necessarily have to have new developments along with road improvements. However, new developments should be dealt with as a separate issue.”

Ray, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the “bypass” proposal is inextricably linked to new development. The bypass proposal would never have seen the light of day if it were not for the prospect of new development.

The proposed bypass (a.k.a. residential street) is an enabling device for: (1) building the landlocked Beachwood subdivison and (2) significantly expanding the Pacific Ridge subdivision.

The founders of CCF do not deny this.

Coastal Commission alerts HMB to problems with Foothill Bypass

June 15, 2006

Ray Olson wrote:
“A path of least resistance such as a road that connects 92 to 1, without going thru the downtown area, and without ANY lights, then you have a more optimum solution.”

First, the reality is that it would have TWO lights--one at each end--unless the “bypass” promoters could somehow secure an extra $20 million in funding for two underpass/merge connections. Probability of obtaining the extra funding = 0.

Second, what about the hundreds of houses that would be built along the bypass route? How are those people going to pull out of their driveways or enter from branch streets? Answer: When they pull out, the “bypass” traffic will slowdown or stop completely.

Echoing what Ken King said earlier: The so-called “bypass” is nothing more than a residential street. It would not help ease traffic congestion. And...it is never going to be built.

Caltrans is less certain a new traffic light is needed

June 06, 2006

CalTrans traffic study confirms exactly what the data from the 511 website has been saying for the last week: a new stoplight from northbound Hwy 1 onto Hwy 92 is not needed. When school lets out in a couple weeks, that argument becomes even stronger.

At least CalTrans had the integrity to admit that their initial conclusion was wrong. I just hope that we can get them to eventually remove those three useless pieces of industrial metal which are now sticking out of the ground. They are a blight on the rural coastal landscape.

Albertsons closing in HMB

June 07, 2006

One more thing: somebody above mentioned that the Albertsons space is probably too big for Trader Joes. I would tend to agree. But recall that the old movie video rental place directly across from Burger King has been vacant for a long time.

The movie theatre idea seems like it would be good use of the Albertsons space. But there are other vacant spaces around town for other things that people might want.

Albertsons closing in HMB

June 07, 2006

I agree with Steve Velyvis: People have been saying they want a local movie theatre. What is the point of bulldozing a pristine open field and then paving it over, when here we have an empty building with a huge parking lot already in place. No environmental battles to fight. It makes perfect sense.

HMB City Council to discuss stoplight at Highways 1 & 92 tonight

June 06, 2006

Below is updated data from 511 website that includes today (Tuesday 06/06/06)

Wednesday 05/31/06
7:27am MONT-HMB 10m (m=minutes)

Thursday 06/01/06
8:13am MONT-HMB 17m, ELG-HMB 13m, HMB-280 12m

Friday 06/02/06
5:46am MONT-HMB 10m, ELG-HMB 5m, HMB-280 12m
6:08am MONT-HMB 12m, ELG-HMB 7m, HMB-280 12m
6:28am MONT-HMB 12m, ELG-HMB 8m, HMB-280 13m
6:48am MONT-HMB 10m, ELG-HMB 6m, HMB-280 13m
7:06am MONT-HMB 10m, ELG-HMB 6m, HMB-280 13m
7:26am MONT-HMB 10m, ELG-HMB 6m, HMB-280 16m
7:54am MONT-HMB 10m, ELG-HMB 6m, HMB-280 13m
8:11am MONT-HMB 10m, ELG-HMB 6m, HMB-280 13m

Monday 06/05/06
6:43am MONT-HMB 22m, ELG-HMB 18m, HMB-280 16m
6:58am MONT-HMB 28m, ELG-HMB 24m, HMB-280 17m
7:09am MONT-HMB 22m, ELG-HMB 17m, HMB-280 19m
7:24am MONT-HMB 25m, ELG-HMB 20m, HMB-280 15m
7:42am MONT-HMB 32m, ELG-HMB 28m, HMB-280 20m
8:02am MONT-HMB 40m, ELG-HMB 36m, HMB-280 17m
8:19am MONT-HMB 31m, ELG-HMB 27m, HMB-280 17m

Tuesday 06/09/06
5:46am MONT-HMB 10m, ELG-HMB 6m, HMB-280 n.a.
6:21am MONT-HMB 17m, ELG-HMB 13m, HMB-280 n.a.
6:38am MONT-HMB 19m, ELG-HMB 15m, HMB-280 15m
6:47am MONT-HMB 12m, ELG-HMB 8m, HMB-280 15m
6:58am MONT-HMB 13m, ELG-HMB 9m, HMB-280 16m
7:08am MONT-HMB 10m, ELG-HMB 6m, HMB-280 17m
7:34am MONT-HMB 10m, ELG-HMB 6m, HMB-280 20m
7:50am MONT-HMB 10m, ELG-HMB 6m, HMB-280 19m
8:18am MONT-HMB 10m, ELG-HMB 5m, HMB-280 19m

(n.a. = not available)

The reported times for today (Tuesday 06/06/06) reflect fairly light southbound traffic during the morning commute--sort of resembling Friday 06/02/06 but taking a bit longer from HMB to 280.

The spike in reported southbound traffic times for yesterday (Monday 06/05/06) could have been partly due to a traffic accident that was reported to have occurred around Casa Del Mar sometime between 7am and 8am.

Big Wave project gets its first public hearing

June 12, 2006

Amplifying a bit on April’s point # 4 above:

The purpose of the Midcoast LCP update is to formulate general plans and policies to ensure that growth and development over the next several decades is consistent with the California Coastal Act---The purpose is not to provide a means to insert special rule changes that will benefit somebody’s pet project, i.e., Big Wave.

The backers of Big Wave are seeking to exploit people’s natural compassion and concern for those with disabilities in an effort to push through LCP changes that will facilitate a major commercial/housing development project.

A similar strategy was employed by the Wavecrest developers. Their proposal for huge residential subdivision (to be constructed on wetlands) was linked to a promised new middle school and a promised new Boy’s & Girl’s club.

Anybody who raised objections to the Wavecrest subdivision because it violated the Coastal Act was automatically labeled “anti-school,” or “anti-kids,” or an “obstructionist.”

A similar PR campaign is now being used to push the Big Wave project. Be wary of projects with the word “wave” in the title.

Big Wave project gets its first public hearing

June 08, 2006

Lisa Ketcham wrote:
“Last winter in clearing an access road, they dumped mud and debris right into the stream bed, totally blocking the culvert outfall that drains all the runoff from our community, the hillside above and the fields to the north. Several blocks of our community were flooded. We notified the County, Big Wave, and the Coastal Commission at the time, with pictures – never heard a thing.”

What I want to know is, what local agency gave them the legal right to clear that access road?

Clearing an access road is “development” and you need a Coastal Development Permit before you can legally do something like that. Except, of course, if you happen to be CalTrans, which does not recognize any local authority, but I digress.

Big Wave project gets its first public hearing

June 06, 2006

I also attended the meeting. The applicants used the first part of the workshop as an opportunity to put on a marketing presentation that touted on the merits of the project to the community as a whole and to those it specifically intends to serve.

Three separate presentations were made by: (1) the applicants’ architect, (2) applicant Jeff Peck, of the two owners of the land parcels, and (3) the applicants’ attorney David Byers. These presentations lasted close to 45 minutes, well in excess of the 15 minutes that County planning staffer Lisa Grote told the audience would be allocated at the start of the meeting.

After the above presentations, there were 22 members of the public who offered their comments. I would categorize the breakdown as follows:

- 8 speakers representing the views of the developmentally-disabled community. They spoke in favor of the project.

- 3 speakers from the adjacent Pillar Ridge community who raised concerns about the impact of the project on their homes and the surrounding area (Pillar Ridge was apparently the only community to have received any official notice of the meeting).

- 3 elected officials from the Coastside speaking as individuals who supported the project (2 elected CCWD board members and 1 elected CUSD board member).

- 3 elected officials from the Coastside speaking as individuals who raised concerns about environmental issues surrounding the project (2 elected GSD board members and 1 elected MCC member).

- 1 property-rights activist who spoke in favor of the project.

- 2 former elected officials from the Coastside who raised concerns about environmental issues and issues involving design, transporation, and other services needed for the project.

- 1 speaker who an has a direct ownership interest in the project.

- 1 speaker with professional experience who raised concerns about how the project would interface with existing programs for the disabled, as well as environmental issues surrounding the project.

SamTrans hasn’t addressed Coastside concerns

June 01, 2006

Brian Ginna wrote:
“You [Jonathan Lundell] infer from the LCP update that the “buildout numbers” double the population. They do not.”

If the buildout targets are not going to be reached as you so confidently predict, then why is CCWD spending millions of dollars in previously accumulated reserves (our money) and raising rates to expand the capacity of the water system to handle the buildout numbers?

The buildout numbers are the official basis for the Supervisor’s plans for needed infrastructure improvements pertaining to roads, water, and sewer in the coming decades. Notice that I left out schools from that list. The Supervisor’s seem to view the lack of capacity of the school infrastructure as somebody else’s problem (our’s).

Travel times on Highway 1 are now available

June 05, 2006

Below is some updated data from 511 website that includes today (Monday)

Wednesday 05/31/06
7:27am MONT-HMB 10m (m=minutes)

Thursday 06/01/06
8:13am MONT-HMB 17m, ELG-HMB 13m, HMB-280 12m

The reported times from Montara and ELG to HMB appear to be about 20 minutes longer on average on Monday 06/05 versus Friday 06/03. According to the data, it takes just 4-5 minutes to go from Montara to ELG, but then the drive slows down considerably, presumably due to the ELG exit-clog.

Travel times on Highway 1 are now available

June 02, 2006

Here’s a summary of data collected on Coastside driving times from the 511 website over the last three days:

Wednesday 05/31/06
7:27am MONT-HMB 10m (m = minutes)

Thursday 06/01/06
8:13am MONT-HMB 17m, ELG-HMB 13m, HMB-280 12m

The data for today (Friday) show no significant traffic delays. I have heard people say that Friday traffic is typically lighter than normal. Comparing the 8:13am data for Thursday to the 8:11am data for Friday seems to bear that out. But even Thursday’s time of 13 minutes from ELG to HMB does not seem that bad. I’ll try to post similar data again on Monday.

If Caltrans wants to eliminate the so-called “free right turn” from Hwy 1 onto Hwy 92, then the burden of proof is on them to show that the stoplight is needed. So far, the data do not support such a conclusion.

Page 14 of 18 pages « First < 12 13 14 15 16 > Last »