VIDEO: HMB City Council considers Terrace Ave plan, no-light alternative

Updated

Posted by on Sat, December 2, 2006

 border=
The plan would involve adding a traffic signal at Terrace, realignment and widening Highway 1, stop signs, retaining walls, a barricade at Silver Avenue, and pavement removal. Click on the photo for a larger view.
 border=
Barry Parr
The meeting was conducted as a workshop, and the public was seated at the table in front of the city council.

UPDATED Saturday 12/2: Streaming video of the entire workshop is now online from Coastsider

Tuesday November 21, the Half Moon Bay City Council considered a draft environmental impact report for the Terrace Avenue stoplight [Background and draft EIR]. You can download a PDF of the PowerPoint presentation made to the city council by its consultants.

The plan would involve adding a traffic signal at Terrace, realignment and widening Highway 1, stop signs, retaining walls, a barricade at Silver Avenue, and pavement removal.  Click on the photo for a larger view.

The residents of Terrace Avenue have been fighting this plan for some time. As a result of numerous requests from Terrace Avenue residents, council members Bonnie McClung, Marina Fraser, and Naomi Patridge supported the exploration of what came to be known in the meeting as the "no light alternative".  The city council voted unanimously to ask the City staff to explore the implications of putting no light at the intersection of Terrace Avenue and Highway 1. One of the more complex issues is that the proposed light would be paid for by Ailanto Properties, the developers of Pacific Ridge, which would use Terrace Avenue to connect to Highway 1.

The public still has until the December 15 deadline to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Report.

  • Opening: Public comment, staff and council reports [ width= Quicktime | WMP ]
  • Workshop, Part I [ width= Quicktime | WMP ] (about 60 min)
  • Workshop, Part II [ width= Quicktime | WMP ] (about 60 min)
  • Council members’ discussion [ width= Quicktime | WMP ] (about 60 min)

 


Comment 1
Wed, November 22, 2006 11:35am
Ken King
All my comments

It’s a misnomer to call it the “no-light” alternative when they are considering “no-project” at all as the alternative. McClung, Patridge and Fraser appear ready to abandon widening Highway 1 to four lanes north of Main to Grandview despite the traffic studies showing that this substantially improves the overall flow of city traffic during commute hours, and especially despite the fact that the developer pays for all infrastructure improvements.

Passing up a chance to improve the commute experience for locals for free while serving the interests of those following us later in this century seems like the kind of nonpartisan idea that most folks here on the Coastside readily endorse. Maybe my memory isn’t working, but didn’t McClung and Patridge run promising to improve local infrastructure? How will adding 63 new homes near downtown, not to mention the County’s unrelenting (hear Bolero playing?) 2% addition of homes each year, with no change to road capacity help traffic?

Answer please. It doesn’t, does it?

Perhaps somebody could weigh in with an analysis of the legal implications for the Ailanto settlement agreement if a CDP for the Terrace Avenue signal light is not issued. In particular, what actions would be required of the California Coastal Commission to authorize the building of 63 houses with no light?

Link to settlement agreement:

http://www.coastsidecommunityfirst.org/documents/Ailanto%20Settlement%20Agreement.pdf

Mr. King,

Addressing your question, in short, it won’t.

Comment 4
Sun, November 26, 2006 1:32pm
Dana Kimsey
All my comments

Does everyone remember the book “Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll, aka “Alice in Wonderland”?  Does the Light at Terrace Avenue and widening of Hwy 1 to be paid for by the developers strike a chord among some of our city council members?  As I recall, Naomi and Bonnie campaigned for improvements such as these and now we’re in a fantastic land where everything is reversed.

The Mad Hatter had something to say about things like this; the developers seem to be championing wetlands whle environmemtalists appear to support an infrastructure improvement.

Dana

Who says EIRs aren’t amusing?  The executive summary claims there’s a “wetland” in the median between the highway and the frontage road. 
Oh, really? 
I looked at the map in the appendix and, sure enough, there’s a thin strip of blue hugging the full length of the frontage road on its eastern side all the way up to Kehoe!  Those of you who are paying close attention to such things will now recognize what this EIR is calling a “wetland”.
It’s the nice new CCWD 16” replacement pipeline that was the source of so much bloviation prior to its approval by the Coastal Commission and installation a couple of years ago.
Was it a “wetland” when the Coastal Commission heard the pipeline project?
No.  Or there would have been a new route chosen.
Is our new pipeline leaking?
No.  At least I hope not.
So how was it that the EIR consultant wasn’t straightened out on the background of this “wetland” by City planning staff prior to the publication of the draft?
I’ve no quick answer for that but I might come back with one later.

Comment 6
Sun, November 26, 2006 5:54pm
Mary Bordi
All my comments

dana kimsey wrote:

“Does everyone remember the book Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll, aka Alice in Wonderland?”

I don’t want to sound picky (though I guess I am being just that…) but Alice in Wonderland was published in 1865 and Through the Looking Glass in 1875. *

They are not the same story, though there may be instances where they were published in the same volume.

I beleive the Mad Hatter, a character in Wonderland, did have a bit part in Looking Glass as well.

In our Coastside Wonderland, who is the environmentalist and who is the developer? Does one tea-party all day while the other makes faces on the other side of the looking glass?

Yours truly,

C. Cat   : )

Comment 7
Sun, November 26, 2006 8:19pm
Dana Kimsey
All my comments

The nuances of the differences between the two stories are insignificant to most, but perhaps not to scholars of English literature.  Thanks to Walt Disney, the themes to the two stories are considered to be the same and interchangeable.

You missed the point, though.  Let me try without a cute story:  Pro-growth interests are using wetlands along Hwy 1 as an excuse to eliminate a stop light which in turn will foster more development.  Environmentalists are taking a look at improving infrastructure in order to minimize development for the Terrace neighborhood. So, there really isn’t any tea party.

And, since we’re being picky, Looking-Glass is hyphenated.

I don’t want to read anymore children’s books now.
Dana

Comment 8
Tue, November 28, 2006 4:42pm
Sam Carrieri
All my comments

Excuse me if im wrong but traffic is already snarled @ Terrace & Hwy 1 @ commute times how a light & increasing the lanes in that area is going to make it any worse is hard for me to understand. Do the people on Terrace only care that their street is going to be used as access to Hwy 1? [The olde NIMBY factor.]  Not that the light is going to cause traffic backups the backups are there now. If the developer is paying for this & no money out of our holey taxpayer pockets i say have at it. As for the endangered critters in the diguisting ditchs move them to the Ritz Carlton it will improve their sex lives they will procreate & no longer be endangered. We can go on to worry about endangered people.Or whatever is next on the worry list. Thanks Ken King for your right on comments.
Take care People
From a 67 year old 37 year coast resident.

Comment 9
Wed, November 29, 2006 4:36pm
Carl May
All my comments

Hey, I’m for the horrendous no-project (no-light, no-widening)alternative. Unless people are smacked in the face with the consequences of overgrowth and overpopulation, most will never “get it.”

But let’s not be so ignorant as to think a momentary, illusory switching of stereotyped roles with respect to the “environment” (whatever the definition of local choice for that term may be) is what it seems to be on the surface. The overheated hell, for residents, of the Terrace Avenue intersection with another 60+ homes feeding cars into it would provide a seemingly great argument for later infrastructure expansion after the developer is off the hook for the costs. Like the cooked-up road suggested by the sign just a few yards north on Highway 1?

Carl May

Hey’ Im for the horrendous no homes in my neighborhood too. Unfortunatly it’s to late. In 1969 there were no homes east & west of me. I had an ocean view if i stood in middle of my street & looked west. Than homes were built @ west end of street so that took care of that   one of the neighbors got up a petition to stop the west end homes to no avail it would wreck his view he wound up moving [yah dont like it MOVE] then homes @ east end of street were built. Traffic increased, one of the streets asked for traffic calming bumps on their street that caused the calmed traffic to move to other streets [like mine] to avoid the bumps. So Terrace Ave you are not the only ones that suffer from growth. We would all like our homes to be islands unto themselves.But if true that the developer will pay for widening Hwy 1 without money coming out of our holey taxpayer pockets it’s a crime not to take advantage of it. I got smacked in the face & “got it” lot of good it did me.That area of 1 & Terrace is already a mess how,s widening & a light going to make it any worse, coordinating the lights would be a big help.

Kevin Lansing actually makes an intuitive inquiry here with a request for an analysis of the settlement agreement if the CDP is not issued. I noted he referenced the CCF website where the agreement is posted. CCF just delivered our comments on the DEIR to the City yesterday, which we hope can provide additional insight to this complex question.

The link is http://www.coastsidecommunityfirst.com/infra/terracedeir.html

Enjoy the read,

Charlie