Comments by George Muteff

Terrace stoplight: Recipe for traffic disaster on May 15, 2006

Who signed this Agreement with Ailanto? Mr. Bacon raises more than a few very interesting points regarding the Settlement Agreement between the City, Coastal Commission, and Ailonto. The 2001 Coastal Commission �approval of 126 house subdivision with some special conditions ��, spoke to lot retirement, temporary and permanent access for the project, and more. The signed Agreement (2004), is an about face on several key issues.

According to the Agreement (pg 3), �The applicant shall pay to the City the total sum of $2,835,000 as a cumulative traffic mitigation contribution fee (�the in-lieu CTMC fee�). The in-lieu CTMC fee represents the payment of $45,000 per lot, for each of the sixty-three parcels on which homes will be built. 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.� A good argument could be made that the above requirement is nothing more than a transparent attempt of extortion. To build a lot, one must first pay for a like lot somewhere else, so it can be �retired�? If there are buildable lots in HMB for $45,000, please let us know, as the demand would be high.

It is clear, through all negotiations just prior to the Agreement, that a �permanent access road� (Foothill/Bayview) was not only considered, but required by the Coastal Commission, with good cause. The idea that a staffer at the Commission says that Foothill �couldn�t be permitted� flies in the face of the Commission he works for.

Mr. Bacon is also correct regarding the requirement of the City staff to support the Terrace light (pg9); �The staff of the City shall recommend that the City approve this Terrace coastal development permit.� Further (pg16), the Agreement states �Neither the Commission nor the City, including the individual members of its current City Council, will take any action directly or indirectly to delay or defeat Ailanto�s rights thereunder.� Then, to cement this approach, 18.5 of the Agreement demonstrates the �Binding Effect On Successors�.

It is also important to note that, as a result of this Agreement, the entire buildable portion of the newly configured project was picked up and moved south, so that it sits directly on top of Foothill. This is an interesting point. It means that once the first pad is poured, light or no light, Foothill is dead forever. Why would anyone go to such an extreme to kill an option for our City (and coastside) that would significantly improve traffic circulation, and that was the required permanent access road of the developer and Commission?

Another interesting question raised regarding Foothill is the cost. The individual who�s signature is on the Settlement Agreement publicly stated, at the May 2nd City Council meeting, figures ranging from $100 Million to $300 Million to build Foothill. Are we to believe that the cost of building a two lane road, little less than one mile in length will rival the cost of boring two holes through a mountain at Devil�s Slide ($270 Million projected)?

This development has been in the works for over two decades. It started in 1985, with tentative approval for 228 homes (Review, 08/12/04). Why, after over 20 years of discussion, do the residents of HMB come in dead last in terms of benefit?

To get the answers, we need to ask the members of the Council in 2004 (Ferreira/ McCausland/ Grady/ Frasier/ Taylor), and specifically those members that participated in the negotiations. We can start with Mr. Ferreira, who was the Mayor at the time, and whose signature is on the Agreement (pg18).

Opinion: Foothill Bypass, Part III: We can’t afford it on May 11, 2006

I would like to start by addressing a few comments posted on this site that are inaccurate, according to the information that I have, regarding Foothill. The purpose is simply to educate coastal residents with facts, and hopefully sway voters in a direction that will improve our quality of life. Foothill, as proposed by CCF, would be a 2 lane road, connecting 92 (by the goat farm) to HWY 1 at Bayview (1/2 way between Grandview & Terrace Avenue).

The idea that infrastructure is a �new buzzword� is not supported by the facts. The idea that Foothill is being �resurrected� is equally not supported by the facts. This idea, or issue (as it is rapidly becoming), is not being revisited because Devil�s Slide is out, although no doubt with the Slide�s closure there is more attention being paid to traffic circulation. It is being revisited because, in my opinion, it is necessary. Traffic circulation in HMB is, has been, and will continue to be an issue on the coast. It should be. In the almost 30 years I�ve lived on the coast, the population has more than doubled, and the only traffic �improvements� I�ve seen are two traffic lights; one at Miramontes Point Road, and another at Frenchmans Creek. Highways 1 & 92 are two lane roads, as everyone knows. The �improvements� at 92 & Main will be helpful, but 92 will still be a two lane road.

Some of you may remember that I discussed Foothill during my 2005 City Council candidacy. That discussion is still available on my website, [url=http://www.electgeorge.net]http://www.electgeorge.net[/url] . Under the �Views on Local Issues� link, in the Protection of Private Property Rights section, I discuss infrastructure and Foothill Blvd. Go see for yourself.

Growth, or potential growth in HMB is a non issue. Using infrastructure to choke growth is unconscionable, and that is exactly what has been going on here for the last 10-15 years. We have a 1 % growth mandate in HMB, voted on and approved by a significant majority in this town in 1999. It�s called Measure D. That said, rate of growth is off the table. The evidence is clear, by any measure one cares to use we will have growth. The question isn�t whether or not we have growth, but how we manage it, and plan for it. Foothill is one way to help us now, and in the future, in terms of traffic circulation.

Over the same timeframe, 10-15 years, the public has continually and consistently heard people vociferously spout what can�t be done, and why they feel it can�t be done. Let�s look at what we can, and must do. Just for a moment, let�s look at the glass as half full, rather than half empty.

CCF, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Gardner, and others are suggesting that we need to look at infrastructure improvements that will make a positive difference in our lives. They are correct in bringing these issues front and center. LOS (level of service) on 92 is at F, and now, with the Slide down, we�re off the charts. There are no guarantees in life. Will the Slide reopen? If so, when? Hopefully we�ll see Devil�s Slide reopen later this year. Once reopened, how long before it goes out again? As for the tunnel, what guarantees do we have that it will open in 2011 (@ a projected cost of $270 Million)? Who can guarantee that it will open at all? We never know what the future holds. The old saying, �hope for the best, plan for the worst� is probably appropriate here. Even if both those roads were open tomorrow, and stayed open forever, Foothill would be a very valuable addition to our circulation needs.