Comments by Kevin J. Lansing
This is another ill-conceived project in a long line of similar projects either conceived or endorsed by County officials (Mirada Surf road and oversized bridge, ugly view-blocking Harbor Village Mall, Big Pave, etc.) However, I just read a report that the asphalt road in the FMR project is being dropped. Maybe County Parks Official Dave "Pave" Holland realized that this incredibly oversized project is headed for a Coastal Commission appeal unless it is redesigned to be compatible with the surrounding…
If the HMB City Council had any fiscal sense whatsoever (which they don't) then they would uae this opportunity to seriously consider contracting out for police services to the County Sheriff's Department, just like the City of San Carlos recently decided to do.
Instead, our "esteemed" HMB City Council will likely hire another overpaid version of the Chief.
I wonder what the beach looked like the next day.
Meet the new boss (Eggemeyer), same as the old boss (LIsa Grote).
"...realtors AKA the Lex Luthors of Coastal Nogrowthers..."
I think Lex Luthor might be offended by that statement.
"...I believe they are underway w/ filing an EIR. Granted not to your liking, but legally nonetheless..."
Legally? We'll see. The history of CEQA is full of examples of inadequate, incomplete, and otherwise flawed EIR's in which lead agencies (in this case the County) tried to short-cut, subvert, or avoid following the law, only to be held accountable later at much expense to all. And that appears to be exactly what is on track to happen here.
Kevin Barron: "...Have any laws/statutes/policies been broken yet? Just curious..." Well, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires full disclosure and analysis of all environmental impacts of a proposed development project. Any significant impacts must be mitigated to less than significant, or else that is grounds for denial of the project. Here we have a Trojan Horse project that imposes huge negative impacts on the environment, but where the County, through its typical planning…
"...This is a poor example of open government..."
Rather, it is an open example of poor government.
"No more wells" does not equal "No building." And given that there are already houses with failing wells, drilling a bunch more really doesn't seem like a good idea. Nature is saying that the aquifer is being over-drawn. The Supervisors should listen before it's too late.
And finally, the MWSD service district does not cover the entire Midcoast. Notably, the builder meccas of El Granada and Miramar are served by CCWD.
"...No building until the wet weather flow sewer problem is solved..."
In other words, a building moratorium. Zero building. Really? Where does that come from? It certainly is not in any the Coastal Commission's recommended LCP changes as far as I can see. And as long as we're talking about "tactics" of debate, how it helpful to just make stuff up?
"...I would like to see a coast that is a model for balancing environmental interests with economic and societal interests..." That's what the Coastal Act (and the LCP) is all about--striking a balance between preservation of scarce coastal resources and allowing viable development so that the coastal economy actually works and is sustainable. Trouble is, after the hard compromises were made and balances struck during the years of recent County Planning Commission hearings, the Board of Supervisors…
If (and when) the Board of Supervisors obey the wishes of their developer/realtor masters, they will reject the proposed LCP changes of the Coastal Commission and thereby waste years of effort and countless taxpayer dollars. If that happens, Rich Gordon should be held personally responsible for failing in his duty to serve the greater good.
The pro-realtor County Planning Staff (Mr. Steve Monowitz) sent out a highly misleading public notice for this hearing. The notice totally misrepresented what the California Coastal Commission's (CCC's) recommended changes would mean for the MidCoast. For example, the County's misleading notice claims that the CCC's recommended changes would "Prohibit non-residential and non-Coastal Act priority uses until traffic levels improve." In reality, the CCC recommended changes would simply require the demonstration…
The County Planning Department has hit a new low. I didn't think that was possible. What kind of County planning official thinks it's ok to let a hand-picked Big Wave board member prepare the responses to the public comments on the Big Wave Draft EIR? The purpose of the EIR is provide a full and complete analysis of the true environmental effects of the project and propose measures that will mitigate those effects. A board member of the Big Wave project has an obvious conflict of interest in preparing…
No, I'm not suggesting that.
"...This is not like the phony-baloney threat we got from Half Moon Bay in their effort to pass AB1991..."
Oh, you mean that bill AB 1991 involving development of new subdivisions (i.e., Beachwood & Glencree) which had nothing to do with the school board's mission, but which the pro-development school board went out of their way to endorse anyway?
The Big Wave DEIR is pathetically inadequate. It needs to be revised substantially and then recirculated. Otherwise the County is subjecting itself to the threat of litigation pursuant to the rules set forth in the California Environmental Qulaity Act (CEQA). Jeff Peck & Co. should be asking for their money back from the consultant that prepared the inadequate DEIR. But then again maybe the consultant was doing just what they were told to do. Here's my top 10 list of comment letters linked above…
Funny how the Review forgot to mention the comparison with the notorious Mickelsen-Larimer-Schreurs-Riemer engineered anonymous attack ad in the 2004 school board election.
Schreurs and Riemer are till on the school board, by the way. And we may have a parcel tax vote coming up.
Some technical rules were violated. Does this rise to a major political scandal that the Review and others are trying to make it out as? Of course not, but that's not the objective. The objective (of some) is to use something like a minor traffic ticket as a means to discredit a local coastal protection organization.
What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is a $3500 fine for putting an organizational ID on the wrong page and then making a minor arithmetic mistake when adding up a column of numbers. Thank goodness for the FPPC. They are helping to make the world safe for democracy.
Maybe the FPPC should next investigate the HMB Review for its longstanding practice of serving as the political voice of the Old Guard while claiming to be a newspaper.
Page 2 of 24 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last ›