Specific Performance Summary

By Dennis Ricardo Coleman

I have done a lot to expose the shennanigans of local decision making and will continue to do so.

With regard to specific issues that I have brought to the Council, the following list shows consistent concern with process improvement and eliminating misinformation. If you don't like details, you may want to skip this part.

(1) I helped launch our General Plan revision in 1998 based on compelling analysis of traffic projections;

(2) I helped improve the representation of resident interests on the Planning Commission by appointing a new member with professional analysis skills and no ties to traditional (more is better) planning;

(3) I stopped the County's unilateral transfer of "priority" (for coastal-related use) water into Half Moon Bay, when it was being done only for the purpose of conversion to "non-priority" (residential) uses;

(4) I am insisting on staff, Planning Commission and Council use of checklists, parcel inventories, special maps, and other tools to make sure that wetlands, unique habitat and views are identified and protected, and that no building permits are granted unless our environmental and land use laws are fully complied with;

(5) I persuaded the Council to give direction that planning staff develop a "proportionality" rule to reduce the scale of development allowed on some 270 infill (vacant) lots, which are smaller than current zoning requires;

(6) I prepared and presented revealing reports in several areas which needed Council or public attention.

(a) Our leaky sewage collection pipes (significant repairs funded for the worst 20000 feet of pipe);

(b) The real Coastside Capacity (we're past buildout for commuter housing and a new plan is needed);

(c) The real sewage treatment situation (the treatment plant is bigger than our land use plan allows; Half Moon Bay's share of "new" capacity is between 4500 and 6500 houses worth; only 1400 houses worth are "owed" to those assessed and between 3000 and 5000 "extra" connections are available for future developers to "buy into" (voters better make sure that people like me get elected to ride herd on these kinds of high impact land use decisions);

(d) The real water situation (piece meal water system expansion costing at least $18M, bigger pipelines, a storage dam, more treatment capacity, more local wells, more creek diversion and more purchases of San Francisco water, is now being pursued to fill up the new sewer plant; resources belonging to current residents are contributing an unknown amount to this expansion (voters better make sure that people like me get elected to keep the lid on an explosion of water that could service up to 9000 additional houses; the Coastside now has ~8000 houses);

(e) the operational funding requirements and experience of various Boys and Girls Clubs (a survey of 30 CA cities showed that youth and sponsor participation were highest when Clubs were located near middle schools, whose students represent the central age group of the Clubs' target audience).

(7) For development that we're more or less stuck with due to past decisions or our need for amenities, I negotiated for more amenities (eg. 5 new ball fields, 1200 ft. wide blufftop open space, professional work place development, City facility funds, garden area) and established a new kind of development impact mitigation, where residents are incented $1000 to identify each "low impact" buyer;

(8) I helped the recent 1% growth rate initiative qualify for the November ballot (the growth "rate" is easier for voters to understand and control than the equally important buildout "target", but considering the entrenched nature of that target, we're going to need every bit of leverage we can get, to tame the development expectations that were created by the "more is better" assumptions of long ago ).