Infrastructure

By Dennis R Coleman

Infrastructure elements like roads, water, sewer and school capacity must be rightsized and balanced to provide adequate service while avoiding growth inducement and speculation.

Despite bad infrastructure habits and entrenched opposition to change, I have successfully promoted the rightsizing of water, sewer and highway facilities. Rightsizing means (1) maintaining adequate service and safety margins for current and reasonably planned growth and (2) preventing the overexpansion of any infrastructure element from stimulating the overexpansion of another, and thus artificially inducing more growth pressure, land speculation and influence peddling than we already have (due to the billions of dollars at stake). This is not glamourous work, but someone has to do it, and I know how.

ROAD EXPANSION

I'm all for improving the thruput of the SR92 & Main intersection, but we don't need to go bankrupt or stimulate growth pressures by overdoing it. Thus, I supported the Council's rightsizing and supplemental funding efforts.

With regard to 4 existing SR92 widening projects outside the City, I want us to receive full mitigation for any significant environmental impacts and have insisted that the "cumulative" impact of these projects be documented by those responsible (Caltrans and County Transportation Authority).

With regard to 4 other SR1 and SR92 projects proposed as part of a future County election to renew the half percent transportation sales tax (aka County Measure A) , I will also pursue rightsizing and environmental mitigation. If that is not forthcoming, I will not support either fully connecting ourselves to such an uncharacterized highway system or the reauthorization of Measure A. If rightsizing and mitigation are forthcoming, I'll get on board the Measure A bandwagon.

WATER EXPANSION

I support adequate and reliable water service for existing users, plus a reasonable "increment" of growth, such as the intended 20 year planning horizon of Coastside land use plans.

I do not support locking-in capacity for 40 or 60 years of growth because (1) no one can see that far ahead; (2) the current land use plans (based on which inaccurate 40 or 60 year growth projections have been made) are already past their lifetimes and in the process of being downsized; and (3) having too much water available for development would be growth inducing and also invite law suits against the growth management rules that voters have overwelmingly adopted.

Finally, it is only "development" uses of an expanded water system that need regulation by a land use agency like the City Council. "Public safety" uses like fire fighting capacity, do not constitute "development" and need no such regulation. Therefore, contrary to arguments put forward by development interests, regulation of development uses of an expanded water system does not threaten public safety.

SCHOOL EXPANSION

8 years after a $35M school bond and 5 years after being proposed as part of North Wavecrest, there is still no permit for a new middle school. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm sure we can do better than nothing for the kids.

Therefore, I support voters in their attempt to make something happen by prohibiting new schools in problematic areas west of SR1, thus promoting them in more proven or less problematic areas, such as existing sites.