Comments by Kevin J. Lansing
September 25, 2006
Mr. Gosset falsely (and knowingly) accuses the former HMB planning director of "not following the law" in regard to last year's LCP update. The fact is, the City issued a 47-page document that responded to the many questions raised during the LCP update hearings. The document can be found here: http://www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/7-12-05-Responses_to_Public_Comments_on_Proposed_Amendments_to_the_City_of_Half_Moon_Bay_LCP-GP.pdf A copy of the above document was mailed to Mr. Gosset's home address. Unfortunately,…
September 23, 2006
Well, let me just say that Mr. Larimer's claims that the City's biological study was too restrictive on CCWD (in terms of its recommended mitigation measures) is directly contradicted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist's opinion. In fact, the USFWS biologist felt that the City's recommended mitigation measures did not go far enough to ensure protection of the sensitive habitat. Of course, I do not expect Mr. Larimer (who is not a trained biologist) to ever admit he was wrong about anything.…
September 22, 2006
From the minutes of the August 24 special meeting of the CCWD Board of Directors (page 4): http://www.coastsidewater.org/minutes/082406-special-minutes.pdf "Director Larimer proposed an amendment to the motion to request a conference with City of Half Moon Bay staff, upon the general agreement that the [Coastal Development] permit would be issued, and that the issues of a variance in terms of the interpretation of the biological mitigation and the need for it, be reviewed with staff, engineer, consultants,…
September 21, 2006
In response to Mr. Larimer: First there is the complaint about the unanimous 7-0 vote to place CCWD's pipeline project at the end of the August 24 agenda. There were two other projects on the agenda that night, both of which involved complex and controversial neighborhood issues. Both were "continued items" so it made sense to address those before going on to the "new item" which was the CCWD pipeline project. The City staff makes up the agenda, and the Planning Commissioners have no say in how many…
September 20, 2006
Ray: As I noted in my earlier post, the Coastal Act embodies the same type of smart growth principles that Don is espousing. Check it out for yourself: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=prc&group=30001-31000&file=30250-30255 Regarding your emphasis on the needs of the local community, the local version of the Coastal Act (called a Local Coastal Program) adapts the smart growth principles in the Coastal Act to the specific needs of each local jurisdiction. Our Local Coastal Programs…
September 20, 2006
Darin:
Thanks--that was really helpful! I arrived at the City Council Meeting about an hour late, so I missed the "Oral Communications" period which is the subject of the video. I especially recommend that people take note of Ken King's praiseworthy comments that call attention to distortions of fact emanating from one particular elected offical of the Coastside County Water District (CCWD).
September 20, 2006
Matt Wrublewski wrote: "While it is in everyone right to disagree with Mr. Bacons ideas; most people who have spent time using his statement as a punching bag (right or wrong) have not had a better answer or even offered a modified version of his ideas." Matt, I think you are not being accurate here. Some of us have proposed an alternative: that we simply do a better job of enforcing the "Smart Growth" ordinance that is already on the books, namely, The California Coastal Act (and its associated…
September 19, 2006
Don argues that the existence of the Coastal Act has not prevented any number of bad projects from being approved over the years. Yes that's true, but as Ken King points out, these outcomes are usually the result of political forces overcoming the sound planning principles set forth in the Coastal Act. This is what happened in the case of the Monster Mall project now under construction in Princeton and in numerous other ill-conceived Coastside projects that have made tons of money for a select few.…
September 18, 2006
Don, I have read "Suburban Nation." A copy was given to me by a local builder/developer (clue #1). I agree with the philosophy espoused in your article: "Urban sprawl into rural and undeveloped areas is undesirable, therefore, growth and development should be channeled into already urbanized areas." The Coastside is mostly a "rural and undeveloped area", so it should be protected from the "growth and development" and "urban sprawl" that the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors wishes to "channel"…
September 17, 2006
Don's version of "Smart Growth" for the Coastside would say: 1. Get rid of the 1 percent annual growth ordinance in HMB and don't even bother with implementing a stricter growth ordinance on the Midcoast (which currently has a 3 percent growth ordinance). 2. Repeal the California Coastal Act and abolish the California Coastal Commission. 3. Add several more traffic lights on Highway 1. 4. Redevelop "blighted areas" in central Half Moon Bay and Princeton with new office buildings for high tech jobs.…
September 16, 2006
Further insight into the behind-the-scenes lobbying activity associated with this project can be found at the CCWD link below. (start reading at the bottom of page 1)
http://www.coastsidewater.org/minutes/082406-special-minutes.pdf
September 14, 2006
Joel, just my opinion, but turning a rural coastal community into a "glitzy retreat" is a bad thing, regardless of how much money starts flowing into the local government's coffers. There is no shortage of Calfornia towns that have sold their souls for an expanded tax base derived from out-of-scale development. An important question is whether residents could expect to see new facilities or new services from the expanded tax revenues or whether the ordinary expenses of government would simply expand…
September 11, 2006
Don R. Whitt wrote: "And where will you find another endangered animal to drop out in the field to be “discovered”?" Don, you are starting to sound like the HMB Review. Like the Review, no evidence is presented to back up a very serious accusation. It's all about spreading rumors, with the message that it's ok to ignore the law. Why do people find it surprising when an endangered animal is found in an area that has been determined by experts to be prime habitat for that animal? It's like being…
September 06, 2006
The HMB Review has an update about the disking on its website. The last sentence states: "In 2004, herpetologist Chris Giorni produced photos of red-legged frogs he said were found on Wavecrest property." The words "...he said were found..." is the Review's sneaky way of trying to impugn the integrity of the biologist's find, much like Mr. Gardner's claim above that the sensitive habitat issues on the site are a "ruse." Lastly, Ms. Stutsman may wish to re-think her comment above, given that the predicted…
September 06, 2006
The subheading of the article says it all, in my opinion:
"A South Florida developer wants to turn the quiet coastal community of Pacifica into a glitzy retreat for the Bay Area's richest residents."
September 05, 2006
Mr. Gardner, to answer your question: Yes I would support any project that can be shown to comply with the City's Local Coastal Program and applicable state and federal laws.
September 04, 2006
Barry is correct to point out the track record of the Wavecrest developer in justifying this story. In addition to the previous disking incident in 2004, there was also the notorious installation of an illegal drainage pipe (to drain wetlands) on the property in 1999, as reported in the HMB Review.
http://wavecrest.sanmateo.org/CCC/HMBReview1999.html
September 04, 2006
While we're on the topic of Wavecrest, perhaps CUSD Trustee Gardner could provide the public with a brief update on the status (if any) of CUSD taking steps to extricate the school district from the development deal it had struck with the Wavecrest developer.
September 02, 2006
Charles Gardener wrote: "...there has been no documented find of any listed species on the Wavecrest site." Well, actually there has been, as documented here: https://coastsider.com/images/uploads/frogs/crlf_survey.pdf https://coastsider.com/comments/105_0_1_0_C/ One would hope, that as an elected official of the school district, Mr. Gardner would not dismiss as a "ruse" an official determination made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). As far as the Pilarcitos Creek project mentioned…
September 01, 2006
The listed species on the Wavecrest site are protected by federal law. If there is any harm or harassment of any federally-protected species without authorization per section 7 or section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), then the violator is subject to consequences outlined under section 9 of the ESA. I would strongly suggest that the owners of either of two properties mentioned in the above article think twice before they embark on actions that would violate federal law. People who…
Page 18 of 24 pages ‹ First < 16 17 18 19 20 > Last ›
Facebook
Twitter
RSS