Barry, I’d like to thank you for the quick turnaround on this video. Excellent job. I seem to have a problem with the City Council discussion part, though. I get Naomi’s comments. Then it goes to Marina. It cuts her off quickly, then goes to John as he’s finishing up; then Bonnie to conclude. I missed all of Marina and Jim.
Is there something I’m doing wrong, or, if not, can you reload to correct? I’d like to see each member’s comments if I can. Also, am I the only one?
Thanks Barry
Greg, are you having fun yet? With regard to coastal commission staff generated appeals, look no further than Saso Gale.
That appeal was generated by CCC staff simply because they could. The result was Saso’s lot is still vacant. All because he made the mistake of buying a piece of ground in an already developed neighborhood, that happened to abut Beachwood. Beachwood has been a contentious issue for the commission since 2000 (thanks to the HMB PC & CC of ‘99 & ‘oo, respectively.
Saso’s staff appeal, and subsequent outcome was politics, plain and simple. It stands as the poster child, for us, of why staff & commissioners should have no right to appeal, and it is my furvent hope that a majority of our legislature agrees.
OK, Greg, have at it, although for the life of me I don’t know why you would. So far, it would appear that nobody commenting is apt to change their opinion.
I’m going to go off topic for a moment. I feel the need to address a concern of mine. I’ll start with the obvious; this site is Barry’s sandbox, I understand that. So, it’s my choice to post, or not, depending on my comfort level and interest.
I posted an opinion to this topic. That was my choice. Barry, you responded to my post asking me to explain my thoughts on a separate topic, and added some thoughts and opinions of your own toward your request. My post simply said that I am glad to see SB 1295, which proposes the elimination of Commissioner initiated appeals. I hope it passes, and I’ll lend what support I can toward that end. I did not say, or imply that appeals are a bad thing or a good thing. I merely expressed an opinion on SB 1295.
I responded and directed readers to a piece that Zumbrun wrote, which I agree with and expresses my thoughts on this topic in a clear, concise manner. Within hours, you break Zumbrun’s comments down, repackage them in your own views, and regurgitate them for your audience. I looked through this topic and others, and I don’t see that type of responsive behavior toward anyone else. Is it that you believe Zumbrun’s Viewpoint is too complicated for your readers to grasp? Maybe you were just trying to help me explain myself? Perhaps you just like me, and hang on my every word?
I posted that link, and offered my brief explanation so your viewers could see for themselves; not to have it repackaged or restated. I believe that your readers are certainly smart enough to follow the link, read the piece, and form their own opinions. They do not need a translator. I feel it insults the intelligence of everyone that visits your site; but, it is your sand box.
Perhaps I’m not alone in my feelings. I remember, not long ago, when things were
different on this site. For example, this thread has been up since Friday. It currently has 17 posts (not including this one). Of those 17 posts, three are from you, and two from me. That leaves 12; over three days! I can remember when you’d get that many in the first 10 minutes, and this thread’s on fire relative to the other pieces on this site now. Ever wonder why that is?
I’m not being critical because we differ in opinion on just about everything, I’m expressing my concerns to bring your attention to something that I believe a lot of others feel and see as well.
Now, Kevin, again I say: apples v oranges (CCC v SEC). I have never seen a pencil pusher at the SEC initiate a complaint, exclusively do all the investigation on that complaint, and submit the investigative data in writing complete with opinions, conclusions and recommended actions to the five Presidentially appointed SEC Commissioners. There is no comparison, in my opinion, on their respective charges, scope, methodology, structure, size and willingness to get all the data right. I’ll let the readers see for themselves, though.
Coastal Commission site; http://www.coastal.ca.gov/whoweare.html
Securities & Exchange Commission; http://www.sec.gov/about/whatwedo.shtml
One more thing; I don’t recall identifying Zumbrun as my ‘hero’; however he is well recognized as one of the top land use attorneys in the State. His expertise and experience with the CCC is well known. I merely pointed to his explanation as one that I agree with and support.
Thank you, Barry, for the opportunity to express myself. Have a great day.
Barry, in an attempt to answer your question, and not get long winded doing it, I thought I’d let someone else do the ‘talking’. Below is a link to Ron Zumbrun’s website. It is the Viewpoint link, which is a link that provides all his writings under his monthly Viewpoint pieces. Note that the page is from 2007. If readers are interested in his (and I agree with it) opinions on this matter, when at the page, hit the October link. I could not have stated my thoughts any better, so I’ll let this be my response.
http://www.zumbrunlaw.com/viewpoint07.htm
BTW Kevin, I don’t agree with your SEC analogy, as it is flawed. For starters, SEC staff do not initiate complaints. They follow directions of their employers, and you know that; or, at least, you should. It’s rather like comparing apples and oranges.
It’s about time. I can’t begin to express my elation that finally someone in a position to effect change, and right a terrible wrong, has stepped to the plate and initiated action.
I will do everything in my power to support Senator Ducheney with Senate Bill 1295.
This is very good news indeed.
The beauty of not finalizing and accepting the Terrace EIR for the Council, is that if they decide to build a Terrace stoplight in the future, the Council can direct their Planning Director to determine that a negative declaration is sufficient for the project, avoiding the need for an EIR. Then, the EIR, never accepted by the City, effectively disappears from the public record, and its findings become completely irrelevant. Neat, huh?
The next big question is whether the Coastal Commission will accept a settlement agreement whose heart, the Terrace stoplight, has been carved out. Chances are they will, because it preserves the Commission’s lot retirement scheme from further legal scrutiny.
The public, especially the hapless residents of Highland Park, are left out in the cold, with nothing but questions:
Did the Council’s personal relationships with the developers cloud their judgment? Should
Council members recuse themselves from consideration of permit applications from longstanding friends or acquaintances?
Did the Council instruct their staff to stop working on the EIR last week, or was the work stopped months ago, when the EIR didn’t give them the findings they wanted? If staff has been working continuously since last fall on the EIR, can the public see and review what they did?
Why did none of the Council ever object to the settlement agreement’s corrupt gag order on City
staff, requiring them to support the Terrace stoplight, regardless of their real opinions? Is staff still required to support the stoplight?
Where is the Planning Commission in all of this? Why haven’t they ever addressed any of these issues? Why is the Council fear mongering about the dire consequences of simply turning down the stoplight application, on the basis of the developer’s own EIR, and returning to the negotiating table and court if necessary? Isn’t the developer’s legal beef in fact with the Coastal Commission, who in 2001 placed conditions on the Pacific Ridge permits that the developer immediately sued over?
Coastside politicos, not known for their reticence, have been strangely quiet on last week’s decision. Is there an unspoken alliance between the Old Guard, who are accomplished giveaway artists, especially when dealing with developer friends, and the No Growth crowd, who admire the Council’s decision because it would forever eliminate Foothill Boulevard, which they see as growth-inducing?
And finally, is it too obvious for words, that the Council’s plan is to allow 63 oversized houses, without any mitigation or public benefit? Is it any wonder that Half Moon Bay is filled with tract housing, overcrowded thoroughfares, and a hodgepodge of infrastructure and amenities?
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR SWEETHEART DEAL? PT 1
Last week the City Council announced their unanimous decision on the Pacific Ridge housing project. Since 2004, the City, Coastal Commission and Ailanto, the developer, have had a “settlement agreement” (settling a number of developer lawsuits) that allows Ailanto to build 63 large homes above the high school, using Terrace Avenue as sole permanent access, IF a stoplight is built at Terrace and Highway 1.
That plan was inadvertently torpedoed by an environmental impact report (EIR) the developer
provided the City last fall, which despite its intended effect, instead showed that a stoplight at Terrace faced grave difficulties, including destruction of wetlands.
In response, as a Council member announced at the November workshop, the City promptly began to look for ways to allow the developer to build the 63 houses, WITHOUT building a stoplight at Terrace and Highway 1.
Toward that end, did the City attorney privately convince the Council to exercise paragraph 7(d) of the settlement agreement, an escape clause allowing the City to take a letter of credit from the developer for the stoplight, so that the developer can get started on the project without first building the stoplight?
The motion passed by the Council last week had two parts: first, to take the letter of credit from the developer for the expense of the stoplight, and second, to stop working on the City’s investigation of whether the Terrace stoplight should in fact be built.
Isn’t that a contradiction? Why would the City take a letter of credit for a project they are no longer considering? Why would the City not finish the almost completed EIR process (after so much time, expense and effort have been invested) and, using the facts it contains, make an informed decision whether a stoplight at Terrace should be permitted?
To answer this question, the reader must imagine, from the Council’s perspective, what awkward things would happen if the City were to complete the EIR process.
First, the City would need to address the public comments on the EIR and Terrace stoplight, valuable criticism that measures over an inch thick. The way the Council is working it, the public’s comments can go straight to the shredder without response.
Second, by finalizing and accepting the EIR, the City would be stuck with the study’s findings,
especially the delineated wetlands. That would be doubly awkward, since the developer and City Council have insisted the reason they can’t build Foothill Boulevard, the Coastal Commission’s previously required permanent access for Pacific Ridge, is because of...you guessed it, supposed wetlands. Based on Ailanto’s own EIR, the Council would have no choice but to turn down the developer’s application for a Terrace stoplight permit.
I read Julia’s piece when it came out. I emailed her to comment on it. Following is an excerpt from that email;
Julia,
Another good piece; interesting issue, too. There is one thing I thought I might point out. After you introduce Connie, you quote her. On the second set of quotes, she apparently says MCTV will ‘give people a copy of a tape for their personal use’. That has not been my experience, going back decades. They will, however, sell people a copy (tape) of a recording.
Just thought I’d clarify my own experiences. There’s never been a ‘give’. Last I heard, from MCTV, it was $30.00 p/copy. I do like the way Barry posts the videos. I can go right to the segment I’m interested in with the click of the mouse. Very useful, and in two formats; Quicktime & Windows Media. Also, at no cost. I’ve always beat the table on access to information for all. Barry’s position seems to be more in line with that goal.
I could present a valid argument for both sides. Interesting dilemma; wish it were our only one. I don’t know how all this will play out, but I am grateful for the videos that Coastsider puts out. I know it takes a great deal of commitment and effort to produce the final copy. Thank you.
As far as I’m concerned, all public meetings should be taped for the benefit of anyone interested, and everyone should have access; and not at $30.00 p/copy.
I’ve commented here on Coastsider to this before, and am grateful to Coastsider for the effort and results.
Perhaps I’m missing something; it wouldn’t be the first time. Judging from the pictures, which are nice by the way, I see a couple tractors, a broadcaster, several people, a few trucks, a security car (shame it has to be that way), and a nicely disked field. What I can’t seem to find, however, are Jack’s magic seeds that Mr. Lansing is apparently writing about.
As for moisture deprivation, well, it’s raining. I’ve done a little farming myself (although I’ve only had the pleasure of using ‘regular’ seeds), and I’d say our friendly farmer got it done at just the right time; and it looks good. Funny how farmers seem to work well with Nature. Too bad we don’t see more of it locally.
By the way, I wonder how many CA coastal towns have local coverage as good as ours when it comes to chronicling someone farming? I, for one, am on the edge of my seat looking forward to this magical crop.
George
Mr. King,
Addressing your question, in short, it won’t.
Barry,
This is a very good thing that you are doing here. I, for one, really appreciate it. Not only are you taping the meetings, your breakdown into segments, and the options of QuickTime or Windows format increases accessibility and encourages viewers. It’s this sort of work that needs to be recognized and encouraged, as it only benefits access to public meetings that influence our lives.
Educating the public is a great service. Regardless of any one individual’s views on any one individual topic, your efforts help give actual visual data that we all need to be more informed to support those views. In addition, the ability to archive these electronically creates a versatile library that offers the opportunity to keep on giving. Thank you for the effort it takes, and the job well done in providing these videos.
George Muteff
Mr. King, you were doing so well with the ‘can’t we all just get along’ theme. What happened?
Regarding ‘PCF’s strategy’; what strategy? Is there a strategy that PCF has that I missed? PCF held an interview for all CUSD candidates that wished to participate. Four did. You may remember it; you were there, and welcome, I might add. You participated in the process. It was a fair and open process. After the interviews, the selection committee, about a dozen local residents, discussed, then voted on whom to endorse. They chose to endorse Schreurs, Wilson, and Riemer. That’s it!
I left the room a couple times, for a few minutes each time. Did those guys talk strategy while I was gone? I’m sure there was no talk of strategy while I was there, so it must have been when I stepped out. I’ll have to ask those sneaky little devils about that next time I see them. It’s getting to the point where nobody can be trusted.
PCF interviewed all interested candidates. PCF picked three, for three open seats on the CUSD Board. PCF made some signs, and placed them. End of story. It’s that simple. Although your assertion is interesting, and far smarter than anything I could come up with, it’s completely baseless, and false.
I liked that Ken King that took the broader perspective (posted 11/02, @ 6:39 PM). Can he come out and play?
George Muteff
Nick Casey wrote a piece on the CUSD candidates Financial Form 460 filings to the County Election Board. His report is accurate, but might need a little enhancement. I saw some minor issues with all the ones I reviewed, but nothing too serious for any, other than Ms. Fisher’s. To highlight the major discrepancies;
• It is my understanding that Ms. Fisher has received in-kind contributions that I did not see in her filings. (All the signage, materials included.)
• Ms. Fisher placed two ads in the Review (which endorsed her). Both of those ads were paid for prior to the filing deadline, therefore should have been included in the filings. The dollar amount was in the neighborhood of $2,100.00. There is no accounting for this.
• Ms. Fisher sent out mailers, and placed door hangers in some neighborhoods. They were two different pieces. The costs of layout, printing, mailing, and hanging the door hangers are not delineated in her filings.
Although these are certainly not felonious occurrences, full disclosure is the whole purpose behind the State’s requirements for filing. I imagine they do things a little different in Rhode Island; however I suspect they too have filing requirements, so this should not be foreign to Ms. Fisher.
Following the money tends to lead to some interesting conclusions. It’s hard to do that when all contributions and known expenditures aren’t filed.
George Muteff
I pulled up Coastsider last night to catch up on comment in regard to the election. Shame on me. Look what I’ve been missing. I was shocked at what I read. Now, upon observing what’s being discussed, I find that among other things, my genitalia, and bodily functions are being talked about by Darin Boville (The Bar, post #12). I see the dialog has regressed to new levels in my absence.
I am offended and disturbed that ‘discussion’ has deteriorated to the current level. I’m also disturbed that I was blindsided because of the way I ‘presented’ my opinions; yet should not a discussion of my genitalia and bodily functions reasonably fall under the same set of rules?
I have no problem identifying, and then discussing issues. They should be discussed. I thought that was the purpose of this site and Talkabout. Am I missing something?
To Mr. Lohman, you are sorely misinformed. CCF is a 501C3, whose purpose is to educate. CCF takes no political position on candidates, yet you insist otherwise without evidence. By the way, as the subject of lying was raised by Mr. Dunham, and responded to by Mr. Parr, I don’t believe Mr. Dunham would mind me quoting him; “a lie is something meant to deceive, or give a wrong impression”.
I must admit that I was surprised at Mr. King’s post on this thread (11/02 @ 6:39 PM). For the most part, I agree. Unless I’m mistaken, I believe he’s saying can’t we all just get along?
Regarding a few comments made earlier;
• Barry, Ms. Fisher’s ad in the 11/01 Review reads like a who’s who of the LCP … would that be the support Mr. Ginna was referring to?
• Barry, Dale was referring to the dispute over H. S. lights (Post #8, The Bar)
• CCF is a diverse group of individuals, all with one purpose: Educate
• Mr. May, I agree. Things got way too wet. I do hope they all pipe down when the music starts.
• While our school district receives approximately $6,000.00 p/student, p/yr, many other districts over the hill, and throughout the state receive $13,500 p/student, p/yr. Makes it tough to compete.
• School Funding is a very complex issue, but the foundation is based on density. In that regard, CUSD children will always be at the back of the line until the formula is changed. Although the consequences of this formulation are local, the real problem with financing public education in California starts with Sacramento.
I have a very difficult time endorsing a candidate who has sued the District twice, then elected to run for the District Board. I believe I’m in a good position to make that claim. I was in a very similar position one year ago. I felt I had to make a choice; sue the City, or run for City Council. I chose to run (for those of you that are unaware, I was not elected). When one sues, it’s been my experience that everyone loses; it’s merely the degree of loss. The conflict arising in this election is a good example of that. Ms. Fisher will not get my vote.
George Muteff
Nice article. The charts are an eye grabber, particularly the top chart demonstrating travel time to HMB (west on Hwy 92). It is interesting from several perspectives. First, I believe it shows October 8th as the date data was collected, showing a high peak, over a four hour plus period. By date shown, it might suggest reasonably normal weekend travel times, as the Pumpkin Festival is yet to come, with Halloween even further away. It appears to verify what we have all known for a long time. Is it possible to demonstrate the weekday data as well?
Secondly, I can’t help but share my first blush thought at these charts, particularly the top one mentioned above. Do the words ‘Foothill Blvd.’ ring a bell?
Finally, I think I see a logo on the charts. It appears to be the infamous lcp organization lettered in the logo; interesting that they are able to provide data to the public that clearly supports one of our traffic circulation problems. Perhaps we should send this to the Coastal Commission, demonstrating our need for traffic solutions (Foothill Blvd.) to better comply with the Coastal Act.
Thank you Barry, for your attention to an important issue, the facts you demonstrate, the way you do it, and finally for the opportunity for us to discuss it.
George Muteff
I was present at this City Council meeting, and saw Barry and Darin (filming). I thought they were there for a particular Agenda Item, but as it turns out they were trying something new. When I got home from the meeting I had a couple of emails refering to my presentation during Oral Communications (regarding the size of a horse’s brain). I wondered how these people knew, considering they weren’t there, until one of them said it was on Coastsider. I looked, and watched. Great job. One step closer to live. Thanks to Barry and Darin for a job well done. I’m not sure if it’s Window’s Media, or the taping, but the images are a bit fuzzy. Perhaps it’s better on Quicktime. Either way, a good step forward. Thanks again, gentlemen.
George Muteff
It really amazes me that the same small group of people relentlessly contrives to create “controversial issues”, around otherwise benign activities. They use any and every illogical rational to increase the focus of attention on perfectly innocent activities, and the “conspiracy” of those plotting the evil intent behind those activities. “Big Wave” is a perfect example of their creating a controversy over an essentially non-controversial activity.
Is it possible, just possible, that people (farmers) are all attempting to plant pumpkins at the same time because that’s what a farmer does? Is it possible that every year farmers plant their crops, regardless of what they may be, at the time most appropriate to maximize the harvest? Next, I expect, some will cry conspiracy because those same farmers are harvesting their crops at the same time as well (those pesky, shrewd buggers).
What’s wrong with trying to profit, through the gifts of Mother Nature, by growing something?
To Ms. Ketchum, based on the background you offered on yourself, I would think you’d be a little more sensitive, and able to differentiate between farming and building. To Mr. Lansing, I might suggest you go see, and talk to, a real farmer. You might learn something. To Mr. Skinner, I ask what buildings? I see trucks, soil, manure, and a tractor. What do you see? To Mr. Parr, fig leaves? I’ll leave that alone because this is your publication, but really! To Mr. Sutton, fake farm? To Mr. Tamez, do the words ‘property rights’ mean anything?
How do you suppose the food we buy ends up at Safeway? How do we sell so many pumpkins at Pumpkin Festival? Are our Christmas trees a conspiracy as well? This coastside was founded and populated by farmers and fishermen, primarily Portuguese and Italian. Sit with one of those families for dinner. Perhaps you’ll be more appreciative of what’s offered to you in the future. Both occupations are brutally hard, loaded with uncertainty, and very seldom profitable. Those same people who are screaming conspiracy should try to walk a mile in a farmer’s shoes. If they could keep up, and I doubt it, they might reach a new level of appreciation for life and what they have.
Mr. Iocopi is an endangered species. On a coastside that has a rich history of farming; how many family farms are left? Just about everyone says they support farmers, but talk is cheap. By placing a hasty and, as it turns out, inappropriate stop work order on Mr. Iocopi, he has lost time, productivity, public confidence, and money. Who’s going to give that back to him? His financial loss is somewhere between $5,000-$10,000. He did nothing wrong, yet he’s being vilified. Do any of the people persecuting him actually know him, or his family? The family has been on the coastside for many, many years (decades). I believe Mike is third generation. His Father was/is a farmer as well. There aren’t many farmers left around here. Wonder why.
I stand comfortably behind the estimates I received from the two firms I mentioned in a previous posting. Those estimates (both under $10 Million) have a light at either end (to keep it simple, and reduce cost). If I had my druthers, I’d like to see a Foothill with an underpass at either end (HWY 1 & HWY 92). I’d be very happy if we got a Foothill with a light on HWY 1 (@ Bayview) and an underpass at the HWY 92 end. Underpasses raise the cost. Both firms that gave estimates put each underpass at roughly $10 Million. The bottom line, from my perspective, is that any Foothill is light years better than what we currently have, and will benefit the entire coastside for many decades to come. If I’m not mistaken (and I’m not), CCF proposed just that; a 2 lane road (with amenities), from HWY 92 to HWY 1, with either stoplights or underpasses.
Mr. Lansing commented, “what about the uphill passing lanes on 92 and the upcoming HWY 92/1/Main project and the upcoming HWY 1 parallel bike trail project” in response to my zero improvements in traffic circulation (HMB) in the almost 30 years I’ve lived here. The uphill passing lanes are not within HMB City limits, and do nothing for traffic circulation in HMB. The “upcoming HWY 92/1/Main project” is just that…upcoming. As for “the upcoming HWY 1 parallel bike trail project”, what does that have to do with traffic circulation in HMB; wonderful for leisure, but over the hill commuting? So again, in the almost 30 years I’ve lived here, we’ve seen zero improvements in traffic circulation in HMB. As for the number of homes it would take to make the project viable, from the developers’ perspective? Good question. There are some variables. Beechwood seemed very content to do half the Foothill project (east to west) and that was to be 83 homes. For the other half of Foothill (Ailanto, north to south) adding 83 (total) seems logical; but not so fast. How much could we get for Foothill from County, State and Federal sources? Perhaps we could make complete payback, with interest, a condition of approval for the projects that are sure to go in that region sooner or later. There are other options as well, but for now, lets focus on Foothill and what that means to us now and in the future.
As for the proverbial “conspiracy” theory, it’s hard to tell where to start. It’s been my experience that those that cry conspiracy are usually the ones guilty of it, so they assume everyone thinks that way. I think I’ve been fairly clear and concise in my comments, starting long before the CCF Foothill proposal, on every issue I’ve worked on. I’m not known for my subtleties, vagueness, flip-flopping, or ambiguities. I tend to be rather direct. I’ve had many people tell me that whether they agree with me or not, on a particular issue, they always know where I stand. I research the issues I discuss thoroughly before doing so. It’s necessary. The stakes are high, and I want to base my decisions on facts. It’s time consuming, but also rewarding. Better decisions come from factually based data.
The idea that Mr. Ferreira lost the election because of the Terrace light is laughable, as is his assertions that he didn’t have the CCF proposal at the 5/02 Council meeting, or as late as Part 3 of his 3 part series on how Foothill can’t be done (5/10, on Coastsider still describes a 4 lane superstructure). Other spins do include;
Conspiracy theory
Proposing a complete bypass to “settle” for half of it
That I have a “political clique” (I wonder how the members of this “clique” feel about that?)
Mr. Skinner’s comments (I mean the second round, the one without “Typos”) “sounds like a win-win to me Terrace Ave. resident issues notwithstanding”
That Mr. Bacon or myself have anything to do with “who’s in charge at CCF”
That the “lot retirement” clause in the Ailanto Agreement is anything other than a sham That “landlocked developers” initiated this Foothill proposal
That anyone is pro Foothill for financial gain.
I guess, when one can’t argue the facts clearly, and intelligently, they resolve to “spin”.
I strongly urge everyone to read the Ailanto Settlement Agreement (2004), and the Supplement Agreement (2006). Study it. Examine it as if it impacted your life….because, if you live on the coast, it does. Unfortunately, this agreement, like the park and others, were done without public input &/or knowledge. Ask yourself why all the fuss? If, as a few have stated (one or two vociferously), Foothill is DOA, then why waste time arguing and spinning. If I knew something wasn’t possible, I wouldn’t waste my time. Foothill is more than possible, it’s doable and a necessary improvement to traffic circulation on the coast for us and those that visit us, now and for decades to come. Don’t take anyone’s word for it; I didn’t. Get the data, do the research, see for yourself. The Agreement is posted on HMB website at [url=http://www.hmbcity.com]http://www.hmbcity.com[/url] , (Planning/Information for Newport...) It’s worth it.
Last October, I was asked a question by a HMB resident. She started her question proudly stating she was a “no growther” (sorry Barry, just quoting), then went on with her question. In responding to her question, I started by addressing her first comment. If we (HMB) built a wall completely encompassing HMB, and let no one in or out, we’d still have growth. That is a reality. All evidence supports that statement. So we need to think about our options. One option is we can control growth. We’ve done that with Measure D, at 1 % p/yr. So, the rate of growth in HMB is a done deal, non issue, off the table. I suspect, and logic would support, that the authors of Measure D recognized the inevitability of growth, like it or not, as have I, and Measure D was created and put on the ballot (1999). I may remind readers that I have never stated that Measure D limits growth; rather that it limits the rate of growth, or controls growth. The woman I quoted above went home with my buttons, a yard sign, and my other material. What other options do we have? It has been mentioned, in this forum and others, that we should limit growth. How? I’m no land use attorney, but I suspect good ones would line up for a shot at a case whereby someone was not allowed to procreate, or move into a particular area. I think a better way to handle that is let Mother Nature dictate; and she most certainly will. We will run out of basic resources needed to support growth. According to the prior City Council and current Planning Director, on many occasions during the LCP Update battle, we will run out of water in 10-12 years. That may or may not be exactly accurate, but it certainly makes one think. That would limit growth. Again I would state, uncontrolled growth is not the issue. Planned growth, however, IS the issue. Mr. Woren must have misread what I wrote. Perhaps he should go back and read it again (above).
Regarding infrastructure, I might ask the audience to tell me what subdivision(s) in HMB was built that gave us anything that legitimately offset any of the “burdens” new development brings? The idea that there is a very real potential to get two developers to offset the “burdens” by willingly building a bypass that will benefit everyone on the coast in perpetuity sounds good to me. Again I would state that in the almost 30 years I’ve lived here, the population in HMB has over doubled (not including north and south coast) and there have been zero improvements in traffic circulation. Foothill will offer that. The idea that it will cost us 300+ homes is outrageous. That conspiracy theory holds about as much water as a sieve.
One more point I’d like to address is the area we’re discussing. That area would be from HWY 1 east to Foothill, and from Bayview south to HWY 92. Take a look at that area on the map (above). The question I’d ask is will that area ever have structures on it? In my humble opinion, I’d answer yes. We already know at least 40 homes will populate part of that area without Foothill. So how many more does it take before we wake up? Sooner or later that ground will be built out. Why not “allow” the owners of those properties the rights they have to build their homes and give something back (that is sorely needed and will benefit us, our kids, their kids, etc). If, as Mr. Bacon contemplates above, we do nothing, the chokepoint he describes, 92/Main/1 will paralyze us more each passing day, week, month, year, decade, etc. If we do the right thing now, the smart thing now, Mr. Bacon is absolutely correct in his closing statement; “Future generations would thank us.”
Mr. Ferreira is mistaken on several points. At the 5/02 City Council meeting he announced that costs of Foothill would be in the neighborhood of “$150 to $200 million,” slightly less than the Devil’s Slide double-bore tunnel. Over and over he described, both at the Council meeting and here in his 3-part series and various comments, the freeway version of Foothill from the City’s 1992 Circulation Element, complete with 4 lanes, bridges, and causeways. Why??? That isn’t being proposed. Coastsider.com has not only made CCF’s Foothill entire proposal available, it prominently displayed the map from the proposal’s cover, and Sofia Freer had a copy of the proposal in her hand at the 5/02 Council meeting, yet echoed Mr. Ferreira’s diatribe against “Foothill Freeway” that night and days later on this website. CCF’s proposal unmistakably describes a two-lane road between Highway 92 at the goat farm, and Highway 1 at Bayview (roughly halfway between Terrace and Grandview). That proposal was presented to the Council and public (copies for anyone interested were available all night) at the 5/02 meeting. Would Mr. Ferreira have us believe that it was an incredible coincidence that he was criticizing a 14-year-old Foothill plan on the same night CCF announced its new proposal? Apparently so from his statement: “My 5/02 comments to the council about costs were directed at that very version, the official version, and not the latest resurrected Bayview/Foothill flim-flam because the flim-flam hadn’t even been announced by CCF as of 5/02.”
Now that’s flim-flam.
I took the liberty of requesting ballpark estimates on the CCF Foothill proposal from two well-respected local companies, one a venerable engineering firm, the other a large paving contractor. Both have done business with the City for decades. Both firms independently came in with estimates under $10 million for a two-lane road between Foothill/92 and Bayview/1, with curbs, gutters and sidewalks on both sides, a bike lane, lighting, and a traffic signal at both ends. It is possible that the residents of HMB won’t be obligated for any of the cost.
As for the lot retirement program proposed in the Agreement (pg3) as a legitimate mitigation for additional traffic resulting from the Ailanto development, well, who’s kidding whom? The lots Mr. Ferreira refers to in Wavecrest are unbuildable lots, ranging in size from 150 to 2,500 square feet. How does the purchase of unbuildable lots actually mitigate traffic? Again, the Agreement stated (pg3),"The in-lieu CTMC fee shall be used by the City for the purpose of acquiring and retiring development rights on existing legal parcels in the City.” How does one retire development rights on lots that can not be developed? How many of those lots would it take, if merged, to actually make one buildable lot, thereby reducing traffic potential in HMB through “retirement”? The Ailonto Agreement pretends that $45,000 will buy a “legal” buildable lot in HMB. As he wrote in the Review at the time (3/24/04): “For the first time, we will have a development that will have a lot retirement system associated with regional traffic concerns.”
What I find much more interesting is what Mr. Ferreira didn’t comment about, such as the movement of Ailanto’s buildable lots, to rest on top of Foothill itself, so that the Foothill bypass can never be built. Anyone interested in preserving the possibility of a future bypass of HMB’s downtown bottleneck would never have agreed to the altered site plan. In addition, pitting neighbor against neighbor helps no one (Terrace stoplight). He helped broker the Agreement, and his signature is on the Agreement.
The moral of the story? Mr. Ferreira has repeatedly and consistently, over a period of years, made it his cause to obstruct any real infrastructure improvements in HMB. That is clearly evidenced by his past actions in the area under discussion (Beachwood/Bayview, Ailanto/Foothill, our $3.1M park, Boys’ & Girls’ Club, high school access), and the vehemence of his recent diatribes against the CCF Foothill proposal. Like some, he fears that a quality infrastructure will breed uncontrolled growth. But with strict growth controls like Measure D in place (and no exceptions, as the Agreement allows Ailanto), we can move ahead to improve our infrastructure and quality of life. How we plan for growth, and maximize our life quality through that process and beyond is the issue. It just takes vision, willingness to dialog, and a positive attitude.
Ken Johnson: APPROPRIATIONS Committee HEARING DATE : 05/14/2008 Ken Johnson Posted 05/09 at 7:16am in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Scott_Boyd: Steven Hyman wrote: “Really don’t know enough about the City’s expenditure on Police to voice… Posted 05/08 at 3:51pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Karen Rosenstein: I highly encourage people interested in leadership, especially environmentally oriented to check this program out. … Posted 05/07 at 10:05pm in Are you ready to Be the Change?
Kay Lindquist: Not to worry. With any attempts to deal with quality of life and environmental problems… Posted 05/07 at 1:32pm in HMB's Q&A about AB1991 translated from spin into plain English
Steven Hyman: Really don’t know enough about the City’s expenditure on Police to voice an opinion other… Posted 05/07 at 10:09am in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Kevin Barron: Carl, ... Jerry Bruckheimer needs a new doomsday script, and I think you’ve got a… Posted 05/07 at 9:11am in HMB's Q&A about AB1991 translated from spin into plain English
Ken Johnson: Kevin Lansing, Vallejo will file for Chapter 9 protection. They voted last night. HMB next?… Posted 05/07 at 6:59am in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Carl May: Part II: In spite of the increasing global misery to come, few experts on the… Posted 05/06 at 8:54pm in HMB's Q&A about AB1991 translated from spin into plain English
Carl May: As bad a mess as Beachwood is, and as bad a precedent for the state… Posted 05/06 at 8:50pm in HMB's Q&A about AB1991 translated from spin into plain English
Kevin J. Lansing: Steve Hyman wrote: “If the bill fails, we’ll see where the City finds the $18… Posted 05/06 at 6:20pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
