"Honorable Councilmembers, my name is Don Bacon, from Montara.  I’m speaking as a director of Coastside Community First, and am instructed by CCF to express our acknowledgment that the city, including this council, is restricted by its settlement agreement with Ailanto from fully participating in a public discussion on Foothill/Bayview.  Now, the agreement with Ailanto was signed two years ago by the city and the coastal commission. It has provisions that benefit the city, but it also includes concessions that restrict the city’s ability to freely express itself on provisions within the agreement.

             For example, the city is awaiting completion of an EIR on a stoplight at Terrace.  No matter what the EIR concludes, the settlement agreement on page 9 actually requires that the city planning staff recommend approval of the Terrace stoplight, regardless of what the planning staff might actually believe.  In other words, the agreement requires your planning staff to contradict its own prior recommendation against a Terrace stoplight, to contradict the coastal commission staff’s prior recommendation against the stoplight, and to deliver the same opinion regardless of what the new EIR says.  So when planning staff recommends the stoplight, as it must, the public won’t know whether that’s their real opinion, or whether they’re simply following the terms of the agreement.

             Councilmembers are also restricted from frankly expressing themselves on issues surrounding the settlement agreement, even though only two of you actually voted for it.  Page 16 has strong language that can, and has, been interpreted as restricting the council’s ability to discuss, question, or criticize the agreement.  So if councilmembers speak in favor of the agreement, the public can’t really know whether that is your real opinion, or whether you’re simply following the terms of the agreement in expressing your support for it.

            Because of these restraints on the city’s freedom to question or criticize the agreement, it is all the more important that the public does so, as the public, and public benefit groups like CCF, are not parties to the agreement or subject to its restraints.  This is a rare occasion where it appears the public cannot comfortably rely on its elected officials to agendize and freely discuss an issue vital to our community’s interests.  We hope your council will understand that the public’s taking the initiative on these issues is an attempt to supplement, not contradict, your council’s authority.

            On a final note, it should be observed that whereas the agreement removed all references to Foothill/Bayview, it does not prohibit Foothill or Bayview.  In fact, the linchpin first sentence of special condition 11 on page 5 is carefully phrased in such a way that Foothill and/or Bayview are not eliminated as future possibilities.

              Thank you."