Comments by Kevin J. Lansing

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

State says CUSD, Hatch in particular, failed to make adequate progress

JLundell wrote:
“Cunha has now entered Year 2 of program improvement, and will be required to provide tutoring to economically disadvantaged students.”

Okay, and a year from now, if or when Hatch also enters Year 2 of program improvement, then it too will face the same requirement. Right?

Obviously, this is all going to cost a ton of money, which helps to put Barry’s excellent article (link below) into much better perspective:

http://coastsider.com/comments/919_0_1_0_M/

Voice of the Coast is a time capsule from the 1970s Coastside

The article by Richard Scholl is amazing---it was written 33 years ago but it could just as easlly have been written last week. Scholl warns about the growth-inducing effects of oversized infrastructure in stating:

“The lesson is clear--it is the special districts and boards that determine the population, through control of the size of the sewer plants, the water service, the highways. Because of this, plans to meet `demands’ become kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Population expands to use the available services, and we must expand again.”

Today, we are constantly faced with pressure from special districts like CCWD that are trying to find new ways to expand the water system in order to support more development.

Anyone who has read CCWD Director James Larimer’s numerous columns in the HMB Review will find Scholl’s article eerily prescient.

All the more reason to make sure that our Local Coastal Programs include strong policies to ensure that infrastructure projects are properly sized to minimize the burden on exisiting residents and avoid growth-inducing effects. 

Supervisors return to Local Coastal Program on Tuesday

Here’s my letter to the Board of Supervisors:

June 6, 2005

President Richard Gordon and
Members of the San Mateo County Board of

Re: Statement of Principles to Guide Midcoast Growth

Dear President Gordon and Members of the Board of Supervisors,

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed “Statement of Principles to Guide Midcoast Growth.” I am currently a member of the Planning Commission for the City of Half Moon Bay, but my comments below represent my views as an individual citizen. My comments on the draft infrastructure principles are shown below.

1.  The principles should be revised to state that infrastructure and land use policies must be integrated to minimize the burden on existing residents and avoid growth-inducing impacts.

In its written decision approving the 16-inch El Granada pipeline project in December 2003, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) imposed Special Conditions 4.A, 4.C, and 4.D. Special Condition 4.A limited the total number of water connections permitted within the Coastside County Water District (CCWD) to not exceed the service capacity of Phase 1 of the Crystal Springs project. Special Conditions 4.C and 4.D prohibit either the City of Half Moon Bay or the County of San Mateo from issuing a development permit for future expansions of CCWD’s water supply capacity beyond the number of Crystal Springs Phase 1 connections unless other parts of the Coastside infrastructure (including but not limited to transportation and sewer systems) are adequate to handle the development that would be served by the expanded water system. These Special Conditions clearly show that decisions about land use and development cannot be separated from decisions about future water system expansion (as is currently implied by the draft principles).

In a letter to the County Board of Supervisors dated February 16, 2005, the California Coastal Commission recommends:

“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.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the maximum length for a comment. You can download a PDF of Kevin’s complete letter at http://coastsider.com/images/uploads/environment/lcpcounty/KJL_LCPltr2.pdf

The Coastside’s middle school site is in play again

[partial repost from Midcoast list]

I don’t mean to throw a wet blanket on the Podesta site, but with all due respect, I think we are looking at a Wavecrest-waiting-to-happen. For starters:

1. The school district does not own the land and it is far from clear how the district would get the money to pay for it. I would prefer not to use taxpayer-supplied funds to buy real-estate at current elevated prices.

2. The project would presumably require a costly and time-consuming Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This could easily take 2 or more years to complete. After that, the project would still need to obtain a Coastal Development Permit.

3. There is a distinct possibility of endangered-species habitat and wetlands issues on the site. A full biological study would be needed before we know for sure. That will take time and money.

4. The induced traffic circulation problems will cost a fortune to mitigate. Putting in a single traffic light alone will cost over $1 million, not to mention the need for lane widening, etc.

5.  The project would result in the loss of productive farmland, which seems to go against section 30241 of the California Coastal Act.

Life during wartime

This is really courageous writing. You have to wonder how many U.S. “citizens” are open-minded or caring enough to try to understand what the average Iraqi is going through. Not the majority, unfortunately. But there is no doubt that many those same U.S. “citizens” will be in church this Sunday professing: “Do unto others...”

Department of Fish and Game also requests halt to Wavecrest disking

The owner’s stated plan for Wavecrest does not envision agriculture, but instead a 220-house subdivision and a middle school. So why aren’t people like Mr. SwingFiddle above, who claim to be in support of agriculture, upset that the developer intends to permanently take this “agricultural land” out of service?

Coastal Commission stops disking at Wavecrest

This is another in a series incidents that illustrate the developer’s lack of concern for finding and/or protecting environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) on the site. Some other notorious examples:

1. Installation of an illegal drainage pipe to drain wetlands in 1999. For details, see link below

http://www.sanmateo.org/CCC/HMBReview1999.html

2. Failure to identify habitat for the California redlegged frog and SF garter snake during the original biological studies done in late 1990s.

3. Failure to do a complete wetland delineation as required by the HMB Local Coastal Program.

4. Failure to identify a short-eared owl and barn owl that were present on the site during a January 2002 raptor survey, as documented by the Sequoia Audubon Society.

This time, the lawyer for the developer is quoted
as saying: “We had a biologist survey the land and he was there the entire time to avoid killing frogs. We were trying to be extra-specially careful.”

In light of the developer’s track record, forgive me if that statement does not provide much reassurance.

The idea that the developer would think it’s okay to mow and disk officially-designated endangered species habitat is simply incredible.

Kevin J. Lansing

Why won’t the anonymous authors of this ad identify themselves?

It’s too bad that Mr. Gardner evaded the direct question as to whether he knows who was behind the smear ad. How in the world could he not know who was behind it? This was his reserved slot.

I think the public has a right to know who is coughing up money to support Mr. Gardner and Mr. Mosely because these candidates may be inclined to pay this political favor back in the event that one or both are elected.

Even if the law does not require Mr. Gardner and Mr. Mosely to disclose who was behind the smear ad, one would hope that personal integrity would compell them do to do so. We’ll see, I guess. 

Gardner’s getting a lot of money from the current school board

The above article states:

“Gardner also received $1,000 from the Committee to Elect Jim Larimer. Larimer is a director of the County Coastside Water District...”

Is that legal? How can funds from a commitee to elect Larimer be used to fund Gardner?

Also, does anybody know who paid for the negative smear ad that was placed next to Jonathan Lundell’s ad in last week’s HMB Review? It wouldn’t surprise me one bit to learn that Gardner’s three biggest contributors (Ken Jones, Jolanda Shreurs, and James Larimer) had a hand in that too. 

The Half Moon Bay Review falsely claims they “broke” the Wavecrest frog story

A version of this comment was posted on the Midcoast-List on 10/14/04

I too noticed the glaring whopper in Debra Godshall’s editorial of 10/13/04. Anyone who subscribes to the Midcoast list or reads the Coastsider knows that, in fact, the Coastsider broke the story about red-legged frogs at Wavecrest, not the Review.

Moreover, the Review botched the subsequent coverage of the story by misreporting on 8/4/04 that “State and Federal Biologists Find No Frog at Wavecrest.”

In a letter to the editor dated 8/19/04, I pointed out the highly misleading nature of the Review story (written by Jeanine Gore) and an accompanying editorial (written by Debra Godshall). My letter can be found here:

http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2004/08/19/news/letter_to_the_editor/story12.txt

Barry Parr should be commended for providing a high-integrity source of news and information on the Coastside. We surely need one.

Kevin J. Lansing

CUSD candidates’ forum: Charles Gardner

Dear Mr. Gardner:

I wish you would answer some of the foregoing questions before the election is over. If this is the kind of “response” to citizen concerns that we can expect from Trustee Gardner, then it looks like we are in for “more of the same.”

As a separate question, I would like to know why you think that putting up a new building (in the form of a middle school) will somehow miraculously boost the quality of instruction or improve the district’s scores on state-mandated achievement tests.

I can certainly understand why builders, pavers, and graders would want one of their own on the school board, but can you give us some idea of your SPECIFIC plans to improve academic performance in our local schools?

Kevin J. Lansing

Page 18 of 18 pages « First  <  16 17 18