This map shows the FMR and the POST open space in relationship to the Big Wave site.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Map of Big Wave Project Site
This map shows the FMR and the POST open space in relationship to the Big Wave site.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Big Wave Project “trails”
Coastsider: by Lisa Ketcham Sun, Dec 13
Check out the onsite trail system offered by Big Wave Project. Throughout the project documents, the “North Trail” is touted as a Coastal Trail Extension to POST property and the blufftop, a totally false claim. This existing access road stops abruptly in a tangle of blackberries at Pillar Point Marsh.
Check out the onsite trail system offered by Big Wave Project. Throughout the project documents, the “North Trail” is touted as a Coastal Trail Extension to POST property and the blufftop, a totally false claim. This existing access road stops abruptly in a tangle of blackberries at Pillar Point Marsh.
Big Wave "trails" discussed in the letter are shown in orange. Click to enlarge.
The “Wetlands” and North Trails together form a paved fire access road for the Project. The combination of the two for public access provides only a loop trail hugging the back of the parking lot and tall Office Park buildings. There is no open space or blufftop access from these roads. Their square footage is even included in the area of proposed restored wetlands at the Project.
A hopeful improvement to the dangers of walking or biking along Airport St. might be the proposed trail along the front of the Project. Studying the plans shows an 8 ft wide concrete walking path inside the existing roadside drainage ditch which would remain—in other words no road widening and curb with parking, as was provided by neighboring development to the north.
Instead of road widening with a designated bike lane, or a separate multi-use trail, which this area really needs, Big Wave proposes some road narrowing. Between the two Big Wave parcels, at the concrete headwalls where the drainage culverts pass under Airport St. to the marsh, the walking path swings out to the road and narrows to 4 ft wide. To make room for the walkway, the road is narrowed leaving 12 ft in each direction for vehicles and bikes together with an unforgiving K rail edge.
Sixty feet of K rail would protect pedestrians as they approach and cross the culvert area, with five sand-filled crash barrels at the leading edge of the K rail. On the east side of Airport St., same K rail and crash barrels, but no protected walkway. K rail and crash barrels take up road shoulder space on both sides of the road. In this era of Traffic & Trails raised consciousness, can’t we have something better than this?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Commission rejects San Mateo County's vision for Midcoast growth
By Julia Scott, San Mateo County Times
December 15, 2009
SAN FRANCISCO — The California Coastal Commission on Thursday rejected the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors' vision for long-term growth on the Midcoast, a move that threatens to send a project that has been 10 years in the making back to the drawing board.
Even though county staff members said it was expected, the Coastal Commission's unanimous vote to disregard a series of objections the county has expressed to the new language in the Local Coastal Plan will not make it any easier for supervisors to deal with when they meet to discuss it again in the next few months.
The county has been working with Coastside residents to update the Local Coastal Plan, a road map for future development on the Midcoast, for years. Because the Midcoast area — which includes Princeton, El Granada, Moss Beach and Montara — is in the Coastal Zone, the Coastal Commission must approve all changes to the governing document.
Although staff members from both agencies worked hard to come to a compromise, seven points of contention still separate them on issues such as housing, traffic, water and sewers.
County supervisors were the first to dig their heels in. On Dec. 1, they voted to present a version of the planning document to the Coastal Commission that did not conform to the commission's desired changes. Last week, the commission, in turn, reaffirmed its modifications without incorporating any of the county's new language on major points.
The county now must choose whether to drop its objections and accept the document as modified by the commission, or reject it and start over — a process that could take another 10 years to complete.
A major sticking point is the Coastal Commission's insistence that only 40 homes be built each year on the Midcoast, down from the current quota of 125. So much housing has been put up north of Half Moon Bay since the 1980s that storm water systems, water supplies and streets have not been able to keep up, both agencies say.
The commission offered an even more disputed issue. It would prohibit a homeowner from digging a well under his or her house. Groundwater supplies in many parts of the Midcoast are strained, and Montara residents do not have access to a public water supply.
The combined effects of both amendments would be to stop more than 100 pending home construction and remodeling projects on the Midcoast, including a major development known as Big Wave that would provide affordable housing to 50 developmentally disabled adults.
"We think that 40 housing units per year is too few in that it doesn't allow for the infrastructure improvements that could be partially funded by private development to take place. We think that 75 units is a more realistic number," said Lisa Grote, San Mateo County's community development director.
She also noted that the county is waiting for the results of a study on how much groundwater is available in the Midcoast.
"It's premature to put the moratorium on water wells now before we get that information," she said.
Coastal Commissioner Steve Blank said he understood the county's concerns, but he added that the language of the Local Coastal Plan must conform with the purposes of the Coastal Act.
"As a Coastside resident, I clearly understand, from the county's point of view, why they wanted more flexibility. If I were in the county's position, I'd want that as well. But the Coastal Act asks us to look out for the entire state. I think the staff has gotten it right."
Supervisors have six months to vote on whether to allow the Midcoast plan to take effect as written.
Julia Scott at 650-348-4340
SAN FRANCISCO — The California Coastal Commission on Thursday rejected the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors' vision for long-term growth on the Midcoast, a move that threatens to send a project that has been 10 years in the making back to the drawing board.
Even though county staff members said it was expected, the Coastal Commission's unanimous vote to disregard a series of objections the county has expressed to the new language in the Local Coastal Plan will not make it any easier for supervisors to deal with when they meet to discuss it again in the next few months.
The county has been working with Coastside residents to update the Local Coastal Plan, a road map for future development on the Midcoast, for years. Because the Midcoast area — which includes Princeton, El Granada, Moss Beach and Montara — is in the Coastal Zone, the Coastal Commission must approve all changes to the governing document.
Although staff members from both agencies worked hard to come to a compromise, seven points of contention still separate them on issues such as housing, traffic, water and sewers.
County supervisors were the first to dig their heels in. On Dec. 1, they voted to present a version of the planning document to the Coastal Commission that did not conform to the commission's desired changes. Last week, the commission, in turn, reaffirmed its modifications without incorporating any of the county's new language on major points.
The county now must choose whether to drop its objections and accept the document as modified by the commission, or reject it and start over — a process that could take another 10 years to complete.
A major sticking point is the Coastal Commission's insistence that only 40 homes be built each year on the Midcoast, down from the current quota of 125. So much housing has been put up north of Half Moon Bay since the 1980s that storm water systems, water supplies and streets have not been able to keep up, both agencies say.
The commission offered an even more disputed issue. It would prohibit a homeowner from digging a well under his or her house. Groundwater supplies in many parts of the Midcoast are strained, and Montara residents do not have access to a public water supply.
The combined effects of both amendments would be to stop more than 100 pending home construction and remodeling projects on the Midcoast, including a major development known as Big Wave that would provide affordable housing to 50 developmentally disabled adults.
"We think that 40 housing units per year is too few in that it doesn't allow for the infrastructure improvements that could be partially funded by private development to take place. We think that 75 units is a more realistic number," said Lisa Grote, San Mateo County's community development director.
She also noted that the county is waiting for the results of a study on how much groundwater is available in the Midcoast.
"It's premature to put the moratorium on water wells now before we get that information," she said.
Coastal Commissioner Steve Blank said he understood the county's concerns, but he added that the language of the Local Coastal Plan must conform with the purposes of the Coastal Act.
"As a Coastside resident, I clearly understand, from the county's point of view, why they wanted more flexibility. If I were in the county's position, I'd want that as well. But the Coastal Act asks us to look out for the entire state. I think the staff has gotten it right."
Supervisors have six months to vote on whether to allow the Midcoast plan to take effect as written.
Julia Scott at 650-348-4340
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)