Follow-up to HMB Infrastructure Project

As some may remember, I posted a piece on what I termed and believe to be the largest infrastructure project Half Moon Bay has seen shortly after it was presented to the Half Moon Bay interim planning director at 4:30 p.m. at a Planning Director meeting back on June 19, 2012.

You may remember that myself and others asked the Interim Planning Director, Pat Webb, to deny action and instead forward the Item to the Planning Commission for public input and discussion. Just a casual look at the Item and one can see that with seven attachments running 341 pages that the Planning Commission is where it should go.

Webb agreed and forwarded it to the Planning Commission. It is/will be the largest infrastruture effort Half Moon Bay has seen as it encompasses the Half Moon Bay Circulation Element from the northern tip (Pillar Point) to the southern tip (Miramontes Point Road) and includes 4 new lights, 4 locations of Highway 1 widening from 2 to 4 lanes (at each of the lights), a third lane (turning) down the middle of Highway 1 where it isn't expanded and walking and bike trails.

Webb then broke the project into two parts: the first was the trails, both walking and bike trails. That item went in front of the Planning Commission last month, on August 28th.

As I expected, that aspect of this "project" was approved. It was determined by Webb that the Highway 1 "improvements" part of the project would be heard at the September 25 Planning Commission meeting, and it was.

At the August meeting, I was taken aback by a comment that one of the Planning Commissioners made. Above, you may note that I placed quotation marks around the word "project." I did that for a reason, which I should share. One of the Commissioners made a comment referring to this matter as a "Plan" and a "project." That got me thinking (which can be very hazardous to my health, but...). What's the difference?

To me, a plan would be a goal, an overall picture or snapshot of something to be accomplished. A project, on the other hand, is something detailed, something tangible. I viewed this "Plan" as a combination of multiple projects, and approached it that way. I even sent a letter to the Planning Director and each Planning Commissioner suggesting that the project (Plan) be the goal, but to get there it should be broken into individual projects, with each one going through protocol separately. That allows maximum public input.

I spoke at the PD meeting in June. I sent the letter on August 6th. I spoke at the August 28  Planning Commission meeting, and I was there last night to speak to the matter again, which I did. I was a bit confused, however, by the time I was called to speak, and here's why. I could not understand why a "Plan" would seek a Coastal Development Permit (CDP); however, I completely understand why a project would seek a CDP. It's required by California law, as every square inch of Half Moon Bay is in the Coastal Zone.

So, when I got up and spoke, I started by admitting my confusion and embarrassment by it. I asked the Planning Commission why a "Plan" would seek a CDP? Was this a project or a plan? 

To make a long story short, the "Plan" got the CDP approved, without specifics. The CDP presents Half Moon Bay with the opportunity to seek grant funding as a "shovel ready" project; but it's not shovel ready. Agencies don't have to provide the same detail, or in this case virtually no detail, other than the "plan" for a permit application. The scrutiny of Agency projects is entirely different than the scrutiny of private projects. I don't like that, but it is what it is.

This "plan" turned project will play out like this:

The CDP will have a shelf life of one year, unless part of the Plan (one of the projects contained in the plan) is active. The one year starts over from the completion of each action toward the plan.

The light at Poplar has already been approved and Caltrans will install that light in the spring of next year (2013). They will fund that light, but not the road widening. As you may note in the staff reports, each light (Poplar, Roosevelt Blvd, Terrace Ave, and Frenchman's Creek) will require the widening of Highway 1 from 2 lanes to 4. But there's a catch, sort of.

What happened last night was the "Plan" got the CDP. Aside from grant money, what that means is that the road expansions mentioned were all approved last night. However, each light at each intersection will have to go in front of the PC for approval. HMB will now look for grant money to offset the highway widening. Further, the light at Terrace will not happen, but there may / most likely will be a light at some point in the future near Terrace. Yeah, confusing, huh? Me too.

Alright, to sum it up:

* The Plan applied for the CDP and got it last night.

* Each project within the plan will be heard when they are ready to apply for a CDP, which will be required for each light.

* The lights will go in (those that are not already done) before the roadway expansion.

* The expansion at each light was approved last night

* Lord only knows how long this "Plan" will take to complete as money is tight and HMB will be contributing through General Funds, grants and whatever else they can use to find money.

So don't be surprised if the light already at Frenchman's Creek stays 2 lanes for years; same with Poplar. The one at Roosevelt may play out differently, as that is Nurseryman's Exchange and aside from safety, there may be a different approach to that one. They may be asked to contribute; I don't know.

Now, if you are not thoroughly confused at this point, well...all I can say is you are a better person than I. It would appear that it played out the way I was hoping, but the jury's still out on that one.

I hope this was helpful.