Comments by Kevin J. Lansing
June 30, 2006
Steve: Thanks for calling attention to this data. I can't help but notice that places which are presently less built-out also tend to receive the lowest scores for so-called "smart growth." I think this shows that developers are attracted to places with a lot open space land. Why? Because sprawl-inducing development is a profitable venture for them. Unfortuantely, such development is net money-loser for the local governments that must supply public services to the new houses. Unlike San Mateo County's…
June 23, 2006
Kind of a curious how both David Cline (Boy's and Girls Club) and the owners of the Big Wave property both decided to jump into the grading...er...pumpkin growing business in the same week.
We might want to keep an eye out for a bulldozer to show up on the Wavecrest property in the next few days.
June 19, 2006
Tim Pond wrote:
"All development is also subject to a vast array of review..."
In theory that may be true. But in practice...
https://coastsider.com/comments/1568_0_1_0_C/
June 16, 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…
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…
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.
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. https://coastsider.com/comments/1038_0_1_0_C/ https://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…
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.…
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.
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…
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,…
June 15, 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…
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…
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…
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.
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.
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…
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…
June 07, 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?…
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…
Page 20 of 24 pages ‹ First < 18 19 20 21 22 > Last ›
Facebook
Twitter
RSS