Comments by Don Bacon
July 07, 2006
On June 25th I wrote: “The Coastal Commission’s 2001 approval for Pacific Ridge required that even the portion of Foothill constructed within the subdivision be “consistent with the design criteria specified for arterial streets, with no direct driveway access to any of the proposed lots”(p. 43). The approval referenced the City’s Circulation Element in defining arterial streets like Foothill as “’Limited Access Facilities’ designed to carry traffic from collector streets and to and…
June 27, 2006
Ken: In quoting the Bolsa Chica decision, you conveniently left off the earlier part of the sentence. It states that “ON THE RECORD DEVELOPED BY [Coastal] COMMISSION, neither residential development in the wetlands nor destruction of the pond are permissible”(emphasis added). On the next page the decision explains that “although wetlands could be eliminated if needed for a road or highway, Commission had not made a required finding that the need to widen Warner Road outweighed the value of…
June 26, 2006
Here's the link to the 1999 Bolsa Chica decision:
http://tinyurl.com/jqlsj
June 25, 2006
Ray: The Bolsa Chica decision, in upholding the lower court’s finding that “wetlands could be eliminated if needed for a road or highway,” pertained to an arterial street within the city of Huntington Beach, which is closely analogous to Foothill Boulevard within Half Moon Bay. The Coastal Commission’s 2001 approval for Pacific Ridge required that even the portion of Foothill constructed within the subdivision be “consistent with the design criteria specified for arterial streets, with…
June 22, 2006
Ken King wrote: "There is no way around the wetlands behind the highschool, just not enough room between the massive hillside and the riparian habitat." Riparian? The Coastal Commission wrote, in the 2001 Ailanto approval: "According to a preliminary biological study conducted for the Draft EIR prepared for the City for the proposed construction of Foothill Boulevard, it is possible that Foothill can be realigned to avoid wetlands." That left the door ajar, so the City got itself another study. Also…
June 21, 2006
“Wetlands could be eliminated if needed for a road or highway”(Bolsa Chica decision, p. 2). That is not a misprint. The appellate court, in the 1999 Bolsa Chica decision, upheld the lower court’s ruling that “wetlands could be eliminated for a road or highway,” so long as there is a finding that the need for the road outweighs the value of preserving the wetland. Notice that the ruling does not require any mitigation of the wetland: it can simply be eliminated. That is why the tunnel project…
June 19, 2006
Mike: You have endorsed the practice of HMB public officials dictating to planning staff whether to recommend approval or denial of an application before the City. Please answer my questions: did you or (to your knowledge) any other HMB public officials ever require, attempt to require, or otherwise influence a specific recommendation from planning staff on an application before the City? If so, please provide details of which applications, how planning staff was instructed to recommend, disclosures…
June 19, 2006
Ken King wrote: “The Settlement agreement could fail for a number of reasons--see my June 14 post above. It is not locked in as Mr. Bacon argued earlier.” Of course I had to contradict the false assertion that I ever argued the settlement agreement was “locked in,” since on May 11th, in “Terrace Stoplight: Recipe for Traffic Disaster,” I wrote: “There’s a big catch to the settlement agreement. If the City and Commission don’t agree to a stoplight at Terrace, the agreement is nullified…
June 19, 2006
Mike Ferreira and Ken King have no problem with the settlement agreement’s requirement that Coastal Commission and City planning staff recommend approval of the as-yet-unsubmitted application for a Terrace stoplight. As Ken wrote: “…the staff, which operates at the direction of the council, has to do its bidding. The body does what the head tells it to, no surprise there.” Mike: You served for years as an HMB planning commissioner and councilmember. Since you agree with the practice of requiring…
June 19, 2006
Kevin Lansing wrote: “When I read your arguments closely, I get the distinct impression that your main goal is to kill that settlement agreement. All of the talk about the Foothill “bypass” and claims of addressing traffic problems are just a sideshow, it would appear.” Kevin: Preserving the possibility of a bypass is my central concern here. Because the settlement agreement systematically attempts to eliminate the possibility of Foothill forever, and yet that possibility should be preserved,…
June 18, 2006
Kevin: My point about the settlement agreement is that if it is fulfilled, Foothill becomes forever impossible, due to the agreed site plan. Closing that door in perpetuity clearly runs counter to the public interest. The agreement has every appearance of an improvisation, in order to extricate the parties from legal proceedings whose outcomes all the parties had become increasingly apprehensive about. The key elements dealing with access and the lot retirement program are truly clumsy, and wouldn’t…
June 16, 2006
Chris Kern, whose May 3rd and June 6th public statements contradict each other, owes everyone an explanation. He entered this discussion of his own accord. Or did he? Why would Mr. Kern and the Coastal Commission, who once required Foothill, now so eagerly attempt to hammer nails in its coffin? All of the most dedicated opponents of Foothill – the Commission, the developer, some past and present HMB officials – have one thing in common: a vested interest in fulfilling the Pacific Ridge settlement…
June 18, 2006
Ken King wrote: "Besides not understanding Measure D passed by the voters that exempted certain subdivisions...." Ken: I can't find the language in Measure D that exempted any subdivisions. Could you patch in the relevant ballot language for me? Mike Ferreira wrote: "As to CCF’s propaganda regarding the Measure D exemption, It’s not a matter of the Council “allowing this exemption”, it’s a matter of settled court law. The Council has no choice." Mike: What I recall about the Measure D…
May 28, 2006
Mr. Ferreira signed the 2004 Ailanto agreement, yet seems unaware that the agreement is an attempt to settle three related (and active) cases – two in County Superior Court and one in the State Court of Appeal. He states that “It’s already been in court. The Coastal Commission won…They are in the driver’s seat.” Nothing could be further from the truth. If the Ailanto agreement is nullified, the parties can either come up with another agreement to present to the courts or try the various…
May 27, 2006
The Beachwood and Ailanto developers both oppose Coastside Community First’s interest in Foothill/Bayview. Last Tuesday an Ailanto representative addressed a meeting of local Realtors, describing CCF’s efforts as a “conspiracy.” Want to join the conspiracy? Start questioning the Ailanto settlement agreement. In particular, ask what would happen, and who might lose, if the agreement fell apart. “FOOTHILL IS DEAD” We’ve been told an end to the agreement would mean a return to the terms…
May 22, 2006
Coastsidecommunityfirst.org is scanning in the Ailanto settlement agreement, City and Coastal Commission reports and conditional approvals for Ailanto, and any other related documents its webmasters can find, for public perusal. People need to read this stuff. It was Mike Ferreira who said the CCF Foothill proposal was "cavalier." Leonard Woren found the proposal "amusing," asserting that it "snookers" (sic) the public. His comments go on to refer to "BS" and "baloney." Kevin Lansing is concerned…
May 05, 2006
Kevin Lansing has asked some good questions about the Foothill/Bayview discussion outline Coastside Community First released Tuesday. I should emphasize that what follows is not authorized by CCF, and are my opinions alone. To begin, I would like to emphasize two core beliefs I hope we all share: first, that reasonable people can disagree, meaning that the person who disagrees with you is not necessarily less reasonable; and second, that a community of reasonable people can find consensus in a way…
Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2
Facebook
Twitter
RSS