Comments by Kevin J. Lansing

Coastal Commission unpopular with mansion family

A enlightening description of how the Coastal Commission voted on this project can be found in the May 2005 issue of California Coastwatcher

(Scroll down to the bottom of the issue to Item #3)

http://www.coastwatcher.com/C41503799/E1523686470/index.html

HMB City Council pushes ahead with HMB Planning Commission restructuring

I would just like to set the record straight regarding Chris Mickelsen’s statement above, which is not true, but nonetheless self-serving.

The planning commission provides regulatory oversight of CCWD’s development activities. The planning commission reviews CCWD’s proposed pipeline projects to ensure that they comply with the California Coastal Act.  The law requires pipelines to be properly-sized to avoid growth-inducing impacts and the project should be financed so that current residents are not forced to subsidize the building of infrastructure that will serve future development.

CCWD’s track record with the California Coastal Commission reveals a distinct tendency of its elected board members to resist regulatory oversight. I have written about this elsewhere, noting that the Coastal Commission staff found CCWD’s engineering analysis for the El Granada pipeline to be lacking in important ways. 

http://voiceofthecoast.com/2005/10/is_ccwd_a_good_steward_of_publ.html

Far from being “hostile” to CCWD’s pipeline projects, the HMB planning commission has simply done its job. The planning commission followed the Coastal Commission’s lead by imposing conditions of approval on CCWD’s pipeline permits. These conditions prohibit the water system from being expanded beyond “Phase 1” unless it can be shown that roads, sewers, and schools are adequate to handle the next phase of development.

The response from CCWD’s directors was to declare at a public meeting their intent to ignore these conditions of approval (Fortunately, CCWD’s lawyer managed to convince them that this would be illegal). Earlier this year, official CCWD correspondence signed by Mr. Mickelsen accused City officials of promoting a “scheme of building inadequate infrastructure.” Shrill accusations are the norm for Mr. Mickelsen.

What we have here is this: an elected official of the water district using his considerable local political influence to weaken the independence of a commission that is supposed to provide regulatory oversight of the water district. 

Half Moon Bay recount begins Monday morning; and a lesson about headline-writing

Did you say “possible” bias??? For many of us, this is not something that has ever been in doubt.

http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2005/02/23/news/letter_to_the_editor/story07.txt

Coastal Commission staff spanks Midcoast LCP update

Barry Parr wrote:
“This raises the bigger question of whether the residents of the Midcoast can control our own communities unless we have local government.”

The latest set of Supervisors’ recommendations should be a wake-up call for the residents of the Midcoast. Their objective is to make it easier for the County to meet its housing objectives, not to address the problems of overdevelopment, traffic, and loss of coastal resources that we all know are getting worse every day (see link below to earlier article).

http://coastsider.com/comments/1038_0_1_15_M/

The latest Coastal Commission staff letter shows how far the Supervisors’ have strayed from the balanced principles set forth in the Coastal Act.

The road to self-government on the Midcoast is a long and hard one. But a first step could be a citizen-sponsored ballot initiative that would direct the Supervisors to implement a 1% residential growth rate (a true 1% rate that counts everything), patterned after HMB’s 1% growth ordinance (Measure D) that passed by a wide margin in 1999.

Only in this way can average citizens hope to counter the paid, professional lobbying efforts of the realtor/developer/property-rights groups.

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

It is true that the County Planning Commission recommended a lower (1% percent) residential growth limit, but they also recommended not counting affordable housing, second units, and caretaker’s quarters. The latter is a bad idea and goes directly against the Coastal Commission staff recommendations.

The County Planning Commission also endorsed the idea of the Midcoast being able to handle an additional 3000-3400 houses. The Midcoast infrastructure cannot support that. Just think of the impact those additional houses would have on the already-overburdened Cabrillo Unified School District. 

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

Lorraine Feather writes:
“Since they don’t care, what can we do? This isn’t a rhetorical question. I’d love to know if anyone has an idea.”

Well, I would say that they do care, but mostly for protecting the interests of their friends and contributors in the developer/realtor/contractor/property-rights communities. A small group of people are going to make a lot of money in the building, selling, and repeated re-selling of 3400 more houses.

One thing that can be done is to provide written and oral input at the December 6 hearng and then write letters to the Coastal Commission when and if this LCP update is approved by the Board of Supervisors.

You mentioned the issue of cars per household. The last thing that El Granada or any other neighborhood needs in my opinion is a policy that reduces the requirement for providing off-street parking. The streets of the Coastside are already clogged with too many parked cars. What will Midcoast neighborhoods look like with cars from 3400 additional houses? 

McClung leads Ferreira by 15 votes and McKimmie leads King by 5; totals may still be incomplete

I agree w/ Ken. It seems that Mr. Reed may be generating some bad Karma of his own. 

What do you want to tell Assemblyman Leland Yee?

Barry:
This is a great opportunity. Thanks for giving readers a chance to weigh in.

I would be interested to hear how Mr. Yee would take steps to ensure proper funding and staffing of the California Coastal Commission so that there are sufficient resources for project analysis, as well as enforcement actions.

I would also like to hear how Mr. Yee feels about some recent legislative proposals to help ensure proper ethical behavior of the appointed Coastal Commissioners with regard to their interaction with applicants and lobbyists. For details see the link below:

http://www.greenfoothills.org/news/2005/06-2005_CCommissionEthics.html

Two crucial meetings on Midcoast development are coming up

Not sure I can make it to the meeting, so below are a couple of comments on “Key Issue #3, Infrastructure Demand at Buildout” which is discussed starting on page 2 of the staff report.

1. The discussion here conveniently omits a paragraph titled “Alignment With Principles,” unlike the discussion of the subsequent Key Issues. Maybe this is due to the fact that the subcommitee’s recommendations are not consistent with their own principles approved back in June.

The principles stated that “Infrastructure capacity will be in response to LCP land use policy, not vice versa.” But notice here that the subcommitee appears to be recommending expansion of the water supply to serve the Midcoast in “Phase 2” (i.e., beyond Phase 1 buildout) without regard to any land-use policy that would justify the need to do so. They appear to be saying: “If we build it, they will come.”

2. None of the subcommitee’s recommendations reflect the valuable input provided by the Coastal Commission staff in a letter to the Board of Supervisors dated February 16, 2005. Some relevant quotes from that letter are shown below:

“Plans for expanding the capacity of public works such as sewer and water that can be potentially growth inducing and lead to greater traffic should only proceed after roadways capacity has been increased sufficiently. However, we realize that the potential to significantly improve Highway 1 and 92 are extremely limited, therefore, the more realistic solution for easing traffic congestion in the area is to reduce total demand on the roadways. Policies should prohibit potentially growth inducing public works projects and reduce the amount of available opportunities for new development.”

and…

“To avoid unnecessary conflict in future development proposals, we recommend that the LCP language clarify that the buildout estimates are the planned theoretical maximum buildout of the community, assuming consistency with all other LCP policies. In other words, the LCP should acknowledge that the buildout estimates may not account for the reductions in density that consistency with other LCP policies may dictate given the constraints of any given parcel (e.g. the presence of sensitive habitats, steep slopes, significant views, etc.), and are therefore not an entitlement to a particular density or intensity of development. In addition, the LCP should include a requirement that significant new public works projects be sized and designed based on an updated buildout estimate at the time of the development proposal.”

Some other troubling recommendations are: (1) the subcommitee’s blessing of building houses on any-and-all manner of substandard lots, and (2) automatically designating such projects as “affordable housing” which will then be exempt from the annual growth rate limit (whatever that limit ends up being). 

This idea subverts the whole purpose of an annual growth rate limit by allowing the construction of an unlimited number of exempt affordable housing units that will impose just as much stress on Coastside infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, and schools) as any other type of residential housing unit.

Finally, the recommendations in Key Issues #6 and #23 appear to have nothing to do with the Coastal Act per se, but rather are designed to help the County meet its quota for providing new housing in the Bay Area.

Patridge, Grady, and Ferreira elected to HMB City Council

bginna writes:
“Do they really want to see it built?  I do not, for one, think so.  I fear it is simply a pawn.”

Wait a minute. I thought we were talking about the park? Why are you dragging the CUSD board and the middle-school fiasco into this? (vbg)

Survey shows school parcel tax has strong support, but not enough to pass…yet

The response to questions #14 and #15 are probably worth keeping in mind as we wait for the CUSD Board to finally make a decision (or not) about the middle school at the upcoming school board meeting on November 9.

“Whether you have children in school or not, please rate each of the following as excellent, good, only fair or poor in the Cabrillo Unified School District”

14. The Governing Board of the Cabrillo Unified School District;

Excellect 2%
Good 22%
Fair 35%
Poor 19%
Don’t Know 22%

15. The District’s financial management;

Excellect 3%
Good 16%
Fair 33%
Poor 26%
Don’t Know 23%

What do you think about the Review and County Times endorsements?

Coastsider endorsed:
Grady, Ferreira, Skinner

SMC Times endorsed:
Grady, Ferreira, McClung

HMB Review endorsed:
Grady, Skinner, Patridge

Final Tally of Media Endorsements:
Grady 3
Ferreira 2
Skinner 2
McClung 1
Patridge 1
Muteff 0

Lawsuits were a big theme at Tuesday’s debate

I agree that the City’s Fiscal Analysis makes some simplfying assumptions, as does any model. That does not render the conclusions invalid. HMB Ranger points out some assumptions that, if changed in the direction he (or she) believes, could reduce the net fiscal burden per new house.

But I can think of other assumptions that, if changed, could push the conclusion in the opposite direction. Example: The study does not take into account the lost City tax revenue from tourism when overconstruction of new houses results in congested freeways which then restrict coastal access.

Restricted coastal access also imposes a huge private cost that is borne by people who are not lucky enough to live on the Coastside.

Lawsuits were a big theme at Tuesday’s debate

From the City’s Fiscal Analysis

“...typical new residential in the City does not generate sufficient revenues to fully offset the costs of providing essential municipal services
to the new develpment.”

http://www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/ATTACH_2_Fiscal_Analysis_of_New_Development.pdf

Is HMB Ranger arguing that essential municipal services could be delivered at a cheaper cost? The City’s biggest municipal expense is the Police Department I believe. So would HMB Ranger suggest cutting back on the Police Department’s budget?

Coastsider endorses Jim Marsh for CCWD

Your map is not something that was enacted by the current City Council, so you still have yet to cite a specific case. (23 words)

As you know very well, the zoning of lots that we see on the ground today is the cumulative result of numerous historical zoning actions going back many decades. 

For example, a large number of houses built in the 1960s and 1970s did not even conform to the zoning standards that existed at the time they were built. Nobody knows why that happened, but the City is working hard to deal with an issue that is much more complex than you make it out to be.

Coastsider endorses Jim Marsh for CCWD

HMB Ranger writes:
“I’ve read the California Coastal Act. It most certainly does not clearly support many of the actions taken to date by elected and appointed officials in HMB.”

This is a groundless accusation. Can we please elevate the discussion? I would like to hear you cite the specifics of a case where you think local HMB officials have taken an action that is not supported by either the Coastal Act or its local implementation, the LCP.

Coastsider endorses Jim Marsh for CCWD

Responses to bginna below:

“Relating consumer inflation to salary growth...is a little silly” and “Exactly how generous is the retirement plan versus other public employees?”

The point here is that the public has not been given the straight scoop about where all the money is going. At the Oct. 25 candidate debate, Mickelsen actually did claim that salary growth was approximately in line with inflation. He also was unable to give a clear answer to a question about how much water rates would be increasing over the next 5 years. You can watch the debate yourself on MCTV (Channel 6) on Nov 3 at 7 pm. 

“So where did you get a copy [of the proposed budget]?”

I called up the water district’s office and requested it, at which time I confirmed that it had never been posted on the website during the 45-day period leading up to the hearing. Nobody at CCWD seemed too concerned about this, unfortunately.

“so, are they [Ascher and Mickelsen] liars or damned liars?”

I’ll let people make their own judgement about that.

“...There are growth limits in place...”

The phrase “avoid growth-inducing impacts” comes directly from the HMB LCP, policy 10-10, so this is not something that anyone can simply choose to ignore (as CCWD found out the hard way with the El Granada pipeline project). The growth limits in place today apply only to the annual residential increase; they do not restrict commercial growth in any way, nor do they put a cap on the cumulative growth that will take place over decades.

An annual residential growth limit can never be a substitute for good planning decisions. That is why it is so important to elect people who are commited to complying with the Local Coastal Program. 

Coastsider endorses Jim Marsh for CCWD

The 30% salary increase takes place over 4 years (2002 to 2006), which translates to a simple average of 7.5% (=30/4) per year, not 6% per year. The 7.5% figure is about three times the average annual inflation rate over the period.

The parabolic increase in retirement plan payments is presumably driven by the need to address the district’s significantly underfunded but very generous retirement plan.

This would not be so bad if it had all been properly disclosed by CCWD in the weeks leading up to the public hearing on the recent 15% rate increase. CCWD’s mailed notice made no mention of any large increases in salaries or retirement plan payments. Moreover, the proposed budget was never posted on the water district’s website. 

Another troubling issue is Ascher/Mickelsen’s claim in an Oct. 21 article in the San Mateo County Times

http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_3138302

where they seem to state that the 15% rate hike is needed to simply compensate for the state’s budget action.

CCWD will have more cash coming in from higher rates and more cash going out for (1) increased operating expenses (higher salaries and retirement plan payments), (2) increased capital expenditures (pipeline expansion projects), and (3) the state’s budget action.

The additional cash coming in from higher water rates is fungible so Ascher/Mickelsen cannot truthfully say that it is only being used to compensate for the state’s budget action---it also helps pay for the other things.

Over the last 4 years CCWD has been spending down a huge horde of cash reserves for the purpose of funding new pipeline expansion projects. This practice places the fiscal burden of installing new/bigger pipelines on current residents. In other words, CCWD is forcing current residents to subsidize the delivery of water via these new/bigger pipes to future development.

The current Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Program (LCP) requires water supply facilities to be developed “so as to minimize the financial burden on existing residents...” In contrast, CCWD’s practice seems designed to maximize the financial burden on existing residents.

At the Oct. 25 candidate debate, Mickelsen stated that over the past 4 years, about $6 million in cash reserves had been spent down “happily putting pipe into the ground.” This is nothing to be too happy about if you are someone whose past excess bill payments were used to build up the huge horde of cash reserves.

Finally, Mickelsen stated something like “the City of HMB should not be telling CCWD how big our pipes should be.” This is not true, of course, because the City is required by its LCP (the law) to make sure that pipes are properly sized “to avoid growth-inducing impacts.”

Mickelsen’s way of thinking is exactly what got CCWD into trouble with the California Coastal Commission from 1999 to 2003. It appears that he has not learned anything from that experience.

Coastsider endorses Jim Marsh for CCWD

Barry, Thanks for providing the link to my “Voice of the Coast” article. Since that was published, I have been able to compile the following data from CCWD’s financial statements. The data shows that over a time period of 4 years, the average employee salary shows an increase of 30 percent while retirement plan payments show an increase of 385 percent. Kevin J. Lansing

# of CCWD Employees
FY 2001/2002 17
FY 2002/2003 16
FY 2003/2004 16
FY 2004/2005 17
FY 2005/2006 17

CCWD Salaries
(Field + Admin.)
FY 2001/2002 $965,344
FY 2002/2003 $947,121
FY 2003/2004 $1,020,755
FY 2004/2005* $990,964
FY 2005/2006** $1,253,700

CCWD Retirement
Plan Payments
FY 2001/2002 $65,789
FY 2002/2003 $91,712
FY 2003/2004 $144,581
FY 2004/2005* $245,562
FY 2005/2006** $319,000

* projected by CCWD
** budgeted by CCWD

CUSD site committee: Cunha is half the price, and twice as fast

I was at last night’s hearing. Barry Parr is to be congratulated for his outstanding news report--this one filed less than two hours after the hearing ended. Coastsider.com continues to prove its value to our community.

There are many, many people who have been urging the school board to go with the Cunha site for years. The clear advantages of the Cunha site in both time and cost which were cited by the Professional Advice Committee have been known for years (see link below).

http://builditnow.sanmateo.org/

It is important that some people be held accountable for serving as cheerleaders for the Wavecrest middle school site over the years. These include 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, HMB Review publisher Debra Godshall.

These people have been telling us for years that the Wavecrest middle school site is a “good deal” for our community. We were also told that the 1996 Measure K bond language prevented the school district from going with Cunha because it was not a “new site”.

Well, we found out last night that the proposed Wavecrest middle school is about $30 million underfunded (cost = $56-62 million versus about $27 million of remaining Measure K money in bank). This is a huge funding shortfall that cannot simply be blamed on last year’s discovery of protected species habitat on the Wavecrest site. How is it possible that we are just finding out about this? How would we have paid for the school if the community had followed the advice of the Wavecrest cheerleaders? 

Many of us will recall that attorney Ken Wilson’s legal opinion on the Measure K bond language back in June 2002 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 who actually threatened to sue the school district if the board tried to use the Measure K bond money to build at Cunha.

Last night, two reputable attorneys on the Professional Advice Committee stated that the Measure K bond language was very general and presented no problems whatsoever for building at Cunha.

Ken Wilson’s faulty legal opinion and Joland Schreurs’ litigation threats have helped to delay the Cunha project by at least 3 years--which translates directly to nearly $10 million in escalated construction costs (according to the Committee’s escalation estimates). Thus, it would appear that Mr. K. Wilson and Ms. Schreurs owe our community a very big apology--at the very least. 

Kevin J. Lansing
Half Moon Bay

Page 17 of 18 pages « First  <  15 16 17 18 >