August 5, 2004

Not the usual turn of events

City seeks to ‘remove’ project from the General Plan

By Kymberli W. Brady
Staff Writer

Unlike most public meetings, where discussions look to seek changes to the General Plan—all in the name of progress—Almaden residents found themselves instead in a heated debate over whether or not to remove the proposed Winfield Bridge/McAbee Road widening project from the books.

During Thursday’s meeting at the Vineland Branch Library, residents were divided over the proposal. Some feel another artery would ease mounting traffic snarls in Almaden, while others believe it would permanently destroy the quiet, pristine nature of the lake by polluting it with “surround sound” and exhaust.

“There have been requests made of Vice Mayor Dando during her term in office to look at this, given the significant impacts constructing this bridge would have,” explains assistant Joshua Howard. “That’s why we’ve asked the Planning Department to look at this so a decision can be made one way or another.”

Currently, Winfield Boulevard is designated as a minor arterial, with McAbee Road serving as a major four-lane connector. The construction of an 80- to 106-foot bridge over Almaden Lake would unite the two discontinuous sections of Winfield and create a through passage to Coleman from McAbee. Additionally, both roads would either be widened or re-striped to conform to plan specifications, including the removal of bike lanes and the $1 million strip of landscaped medians that were recently installed on McAbee.

Although they attempted to push the project forward in 1994, the city hit a roadblock when over 2,000 signatures of protest were submitted, and the negative declaration appealed—forcing the Planning Commission to recommended a formal Environmental Impact Report [EIR] before approval. No further action was taken at that time.

“We were opposed to it back in 1994,” says Almaden resident Carl Rand. “The quality of life in this community has continually eroded by increased development. Almaden Valley is still a beautiful and somewhat pristine place. My preference is to keep it that way.”

According to planner Darren McBain, the project has been on the books for nearly 20 years as an approved build for the city’s long-term plan out to the year 2020. The removal project would clear the way for the elimination of the bridge from the land use transportation diagram, and downgrade McAbee from a four-lane to a two-lane major collector between Almaden Expressway and Camden Avenue.

“The proposal is to cancel the plan and allow existing conditions to remain as is for the foreseeable future,” he says. “Permanently basically.”

“I feel that this is self-serving for a very small community,” says Almaden resident Joyce Niven. “I resent that the city wants to take it off the General Plan with a mere 2,000 signatures for the entire valley. The notion of widening Almaden Expressway to six lanes just so 2,000 people can have their nice little neighborhood is ridiculous.”

However, with only 137 homes in the immediate neighborhood, residents claim the signatures represent a much broader voice in the community, including trail walkers and park goers.

“It took less than a week to get those signatures,” explains George Bettisworth, who lives near the project site. “They didn’t want a surround-sound park. People want a quiet park—they walk the trail for solitude. They don’t even live in our neighborhood. It’s much bigger than that.”

“I think they should focus on improving the Coleman/Almaden Expressway intersection instead,” adds Charles Smith, who suggests additional left turn lanes might better alleviate congestion.

As required by the Environmental Quality Act [CEQA}, an EIR is required in order to evaluate the impacts their actions might have on the environment—along with ways to avoid or reduce them. In this case, one is being formulated to validate the removal of a project—raising another question: Why is $85,000 in taxpayer dollars being spent on a project that has been dormant for 10 years—an undertaking that, if all goes as planned, will never take place.

Dando says the move comes on the heels of the successful 85/87 interchange, along with the environmental impacts a bridge would have on the lake. Although she admits she initiated the removal process, she’s not happy with the process.

“We haven’t done anything for 20 years,” she says. “I don’t know why we need to do an EIR to take it off, but it’s
into the process now and cannot be stopped.”

“When you’re making any changes to the General Plan, you have to determine what environmental impacts that will have,” states Clark.

According to McBain, any impact, either existing or due to planned commissions that are anticipated to take place in the future must be explored in the EIR process, as possibilities exist that removal could pose a significant impacts as well.

Even though the bridge doesn’t exist, it has long been included as part of the city’s “Tran Plan” transportation network. Judy Shanley, with David Powers & Associates says their studies will address potential impacts to air quality and noise, as well as the indirect land use impacts on projects slated for approval under current plan conditions, along with any cumulative effects the change might have on pending General Plan amendments.

“This project is kind of unique in that it’s not truly building something, rather removing something and leaving what’s there status quo,” admits Shanley. “However, since the diagram has assumed the construction of those roads to their full capacity since the 1960s, the long-range plan has assumed the capacity those roads provide—this project may have indirect impacts from that roadway not being there.”

The EIR will focus specifically on effects relative to removing the bridge from the General Plan, rather than a more thorough analysis that would weigh the pros and cons of having one versus not, although Clark says that will be touched on as an “alternative” to the proposed project.

“Basically, we’re comparing a no project condition with the bridge, to a project condition without the bridge. It seems opposite of what projects usually are,” Shanley adds.

“It’s unusual, that’s for sure,” adds McBain.

On the flip side, if the bridge were to be needed in the future, city policy would require an additional EIR to put it back on the General Plan, followed by yet another before the project could proceed—an estimated $200,000 before a shovel hits the dirt.

The city plans to have the draft EIR released for a 45-day public review period in mid to late August, followed by an additional neighborhood meeting and a series of public hearings before going to the Planning Commission in November and the City Council in December.

“At the next meeting, we are going to be taking input as to whether people think this is a good idea,” says McBain. “Whether it’s something the city should do or whether it is not in the city’s best interest.”

“The recurring theme is quality of life throughout the valley,” adds Rand. “That’s what we’re trying to preserve here.”