default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard

MCC should have stood up for people with Highway 1 study

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, June 28, 2012 2:17 pm

My wife and I are concerned about the Highway 1 Safety and Mobility Study. This plan was opposed by a large majority of the community in March. The Association of Bay Area Governments would reconsider the project in June after more public input.

There have been four meetings since March, but no community input. County planner Steve Monowitz was asked by the Midcoast Community Council how to go about providing community input but never responded to the MCC. This month he gave the MCC a deadline to respond to the plan so he could take it to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Supervisor Don Horsley had his assistant deliver an announcement that the county is applying for a grant for the Highway 1 Safety and Mobility Study. I believe the MCC should have stood its ground and said “no” to Monowitz and Horsley.

Instead, the MCC wrote a letter of “wholehearted support” for the project. Why should the MCC be a rubber stamp for the BOS to support a plan that the community does not want?

This plan is going to radically change the character of the Coastside forever, and neither the MCC or BOS made any real attempt to solicit community input. After the March meeting, proponents knew there was great opposition, so they simply went through the motions. We are appalled at the process, but not surprised. The community has been duped and the plan will go ahead as it was intended. The entire process was a sham, and the only public input was a loud cry not to go forward with this project.

I thought we elected the MCC to represent our community rather than be agents for the Board of Supervisors.

John Oehlert

Montara

Welcome to the discussion.

1 comment:

  • Lisa Ketcham posted at 11:37 am on Fri, Jun 29, 2012.

    Lisa Ketcham Posts: 26

    >“..concerned about the Highway 1 Safety and Mobility Study. This plan was opposed by a large majority of the community in March. The Association of Bay Area Governments would reconsider the project in June after more public input.”<

    There seems to be a confusion between the Highway 1 Safety & Mobility Study (2009-2012) funded by Caltrans, and the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) proposal to designate the Midcoast as a “rural corridor” place type of Priority Development Area (PDA).

    These two separate issues converged at the 2/29/12 Highway 1 Study Phase 2 presentation and public hearing held at Farallone View School. The then recent news of the very unpopular Midcoast PDA designation brought many people to the meeting to comment on that separate issue. The concern was that the PDA designation being sought by the County in order to qualify for transportation funding, would bring the unwanted consequence of the Midcoast being required to absorb more housing and development.

    Detailed minutes of the joint MCC/County 2/29/12 public meeting provide a clear record of public comments at that meeting regarding the PDA and regarding the Highway 1 Safety & Mobility Study.
    http://www.midcoastcommunitycouncil.org/storage/older-mcc-sites/pdf/2012-02-29%20MCC%20Minutes.pdf

    In June, ABAG did indeed reconsider the “rural corridor” place type of PDA, and abandoned it. A new designation was created, Rural Community Investment Area, which is separate and does not fall under the PDA designation. Read more about it at their link:
    http://www.abag.ca.gov/abag/events/agendas/r060612a-Item%207:%20Rural%20Investment%20Area.pdf

     

Popular/Commented Stories

This Week's Editorial Cartoon

Phodoodle

10:11 am | See more

More Editorial Cartoons

Connect with us